New Partnership for Africa's Development

Lord Blaker: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their assessment of the progress made by the New Partnership for Africa's Development.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, NePAD has made good progress since its inception. It has established a broad base of support from African governments. We and others are committed in our support for NePAD, in particular through the G8 Africa Action Plan. NePAD needs time to make further progress and it needs the active support of the international community.

Lord Blaker: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords agree with the Government in their support of NePAD. However, on 31st March in Pretoria, did not the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, say that because of the situation in Zimbabwe,
	"foreign investors . . . think NePAD is a lost cause"?
	If the current visit by three African presidents to Zimbabwe is not successful in resolving the problems of that country, would it not be right to put Zimbabwe on to the agenda of the meeting of G8 leaders to be held in France in a month's time? Is it not astonishing that, at last year's meeting of the G8 in Canada, Zimbabwe was hardly mentioned, if at all? Should not the G8 leaders now be considering how they can persuade the leaders of other African nations to ensure, in their own interests, that human rights, good governance and the rule of law are observed in all African countries, as they are required to do by a number of treaties? Would not that be a great help to NePAD?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, it is clear that the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, feels strongly about the situation in Zimbabwe, as do all noble Lords. My right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, and my noble friend Lady Amos in this House, have made clear on many occasions the Government's firm views on the dire situation in that country. We support the new sanctions now in place against Zimbabwe, which add to the Commonwealth sanctions already established. However, in regard to the noble Lord's questions about NePAD and its deficiencies, as he sees them, along with the threat posed to the partnership as a result of the circumstances quoted by the noble Lord, I would say that NePAD is a new way, an innovative way, of redeveloping Africa. It is much bigger than any one country. We must support the fact that the most important element of NePAD is that it is African countries themselves which have signed up to it. It is an African-led innovation and therefore we have to support it. So this is not a question of one thing or another; it is a question of supporting NePAD and also ensuring that we support any moves to help the people of Zimbabwe.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, as my noble friend remarked, it is early days for NePAD, but it is still the most hopeful development to have come out of Africa since the release of Nelson Mandela. Is it not the case that, however it is expressed, the principle of mutual accountability—I think that is the new buzzword leading up to the Evian summit—means that, both in the context of north/south and between African governments themselves, we shall see the development of peer group review which will be able to address precisely the kind of situation referred to by the noble Lord opposite?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I very much agree with my noble friend. Through his robust leadership of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Africa, he will know that the NePAD initiative has been brought into being by African leaders themselves. The goals and vision of the partnership are much more important than any one controversy. I would say to noble Lords that, in Africa, controversies and supreme difficulties have to be faced on any day of the week, but we have to look at NePAD's overarching goals, which seek to meet those difficulties not only now, but also in the future. As my noble friend knows, those overarching goals are to promote accelerated growth, to eradicate widespread severe poverty and to halt the marginalisation of Africa in the global process.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, further to the questions put by my noble friend Lord Blaker, does the noble Baroness agree that NePAD's failure is not surprising, given that the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, chaired by Libya, recently failed to pass a motion condemning Zimbabwe's human rights record? What are the Government doing to make the international response to the disaster in Zimbabwe more effective?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I disagree completely with the noble Lord in one respect; the NePAD process has not failed. It has been going for under two years. As I said in my earlier remarks, NePAD marks a new way of thinking about Africa's problems. It signals a commitment made by African leaders themselves to ensure that they do not look at aid as just a distributive mechanism and that they do not look at just short-term solutions to conflict, but that they consider what is happening in each country as regards good governance, transparency in dealing with international companies and so forth. All those issues bring hope to NePAD and, for that reason, we should all support it. It is precisely because of problems like those posed by Zimbabwe that we should continue to support NePAD.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, while I agree with the noble Baroness that NePAD is much larger than any individual controversy in Africa, does she acknowledge that her noble friend not only made the remarks attributed to her by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, but went on to say that the developed nations might lose their collective vigour for plans to revive Africa if the issue of Zimbabwe is not addressed? Can the Minister say whether the visit of the three presidents to Harare was part of the African peer review mechanism agreed in March? Where will it lead if Mugabe does not take the hint and step down? Will there be further moves by the African peer review mechanism to sort things out in Zimbabwe?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the Government welcome the troika's visit to Zimbabwe this weekend and we look forward to hearing the outcome of those private discussions. We welcome the involvement of the African leaders and we hope that there will soon be unconditional inter-party dialogue in Zimbabwe.

Asthma

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What initiatives they are planning to help people with asthma.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we are currently developing a national service framework for children. Although it will not look at specific conditions, it has been agreed that asthma should be used as one of the exemplars that will accompany the main report. Delivering effective services for children will lead to better services for adults.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. She will know that today is World Asthma Day and that the National Asthma Campaign has launched its charter—entitled A Charter for Fresh Air— today. First, does my noble friend endorse that campaign? Secondly, can she give the 5 million or so asthma sufferers in this country some hope that the Government will make all workplaces—including those in the hospitality industry—smoke free in the way in which Ireland, New Zealand and Norway are currently doing and most parts of North America have already done? Has my noble friend seen the latest evidence from the TUC which shows that if a ban on smoking in licensed premises were introduced the lives of 165 bar staff would be saved and, at the same time, the turnover in pubs would be increased as more people would be encouraged to eat and drink there because of the smoke-free environment?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am pleased to play a small part in World Asthma Day. The Government have been working extremely hard over the past 10 years to reduce the incidence of asthma. We welcome the charter, much of which matches what we are trying to do. We are always open to new ways of doing better with asthma and we listen to the National Asthma Campaign. As to smoke-free workplaces, we deplore the effect that secondary smoking has on people. That is one of the reasons why we are assessing the public places charter and considering an advisory code of practice to meet the needs of small and medium enterprises as well. We are doing a great deal to raise awareness of asthma and its links with smoking.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, is the Minister aware that her answers in regard to an approved code of practice are distressingly similar to those given six months ago, a year ago, 18 months ago? Is it not high time that the Government recognised that the rate of death from passive smoking is three times that from ordinary industrial injuries? Is it not high time that the Department of Health and the DTI got their act together and approved a code of practice?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we are aware of the need to ensure that the code of practice meets the needs of the workplace. But, in addition to an advisory code of practice, we are doing a great deal to raise the profile of the dangers of passive smoking. For example, the new warnings on cigarette packets inform people that passive smoking affects and harms children and so on. The tobacco alliances are now prioritising passive smoking in order to drive better practice at a local level. So we are certainly doing a great deal.

Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, will the Government use their influence to persuade the authorities in the Palace of Westminster to help noble Lords who suffer from asthma by making this workplace smoke free?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I know that a hotbed of contention surrounds this issue. As a very new stand-in Minister I fear to tread in that direction. However, I have witnessed the fact that some Members of the House have been directly affected not only by tobacco smoke but by accidental association with it. We have to be extremely careful. We should certainly consider referring the issue to the House authorities.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, I suffer from asthma. Does the Minister agree that education about asthma and its treatment should be delivered at a primary care level, thus reducing pressure on our hospitals?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. Most of our care and treatment for asthma is delivered at the primary care level. The chronically sick management programme has been in place for 10 years and has been assisted hugely by the guidelines issued by the British Thoracic Society. These excellent guidelines were updated this year and are absolutely first rate. But it is in doctors' surgeries, with asthma nurses, where asthma patients are best identified and followed up.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, do the Government have plans to free those with severe asthma from the costs of their prescriptions?

Baroness Andrews: No, my Lords. Eighty-five per cent of prescriptions are now free. Many of those with asthma, including young children and old people, receive free prescriptions. So we feel that people are being well treated.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, my noble friend knows that I am severely asthmatic. Is she aware of the study which indicated that very few GPs know how to use a puffer inhaler? Would not the education of GPs in this respect benefit asthmatics?

Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords. I do not know the research the noble Lord is referring to; I am sure he is right that GPs, in the normal way, would and should receive updated training. I know that the British Thoracic Society gives this sort of advice. I will follow up what the noble Lord has said.

Lord Rea: My Lords, my noble friend said that she would be using asthma as an exemplar in the national standards framework for children. How will this affect prevention and the treatment of children with asthma in the education system?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, asthma has a whole section in the guidance issued in 1996 on supporting pupils with medical needs in schools, which I understand is working very well. The guidance stresses that children with asthma must have instant access to reliever inhalers when they need them. The staff are informed what to do, what triggers an attack, what treatment and support they can give and when an attack is sufficiently urgent to bring in medical advice and the ambulance. The guidance also promotes the idea of an individual care plan for children, and we are content that it is working well in schools.

Earl Russell: My Lords, can the Minister give the House an assurance that those who cannot in conscience accept pay for work done in a no-smoking environment will not be subjected to the penalty of voluntary unemployment?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, as I predicted, I find it difficult to answer the question. However, we might test this out in the Department of Health; it has just declared all its workplaces smoke-free, and we are hoping to promote that across government. That may be the way to go rather than the apocalyptic vision of the noble Earl, Lord Russell.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, will my noble friend reiterate the connection between asthma and smoking? Will she welcome the response given last week in another place by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Patricia Hewitt, who said that women's health was being severely affected by smoking and that women's health should be taken as a priority? She welcomed the Secretary of State's consideration that smoking should be banned in all public places, which would benefit women and children.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I certainly agree that smoking triggers asthma and makes it worse. There is no question about that. We also know that women tend to smoke more at different ages, so I certainly support my noble friend in that respect.

Food Containers: Safety

Lord Harrison: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, in the light of the Department of Trade and Industry's 23rd annual report of the home and leisure accident surveillance system entitled Working for a Safer World, they will encourage the food and packaging industries to redesign food containers and cans, for example those containing corned beef.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, my department has not taken any specific actions with the packaging industry as a result of the 23rd HASS report. However, based on information from earlier editions of the report, during the 1990s my department published a number of research reports aimed at helping manufacturers improve the design of cans and make them easier for consumers to open safely. Statistics show that the number of accidents from corned beef cans has been declining and they are not a major cause of accidents now. Packaging, as with many products, is covered by the provisions of the general product safety directive, which imposes a general safety duty on it.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, but does he understand that many of us still believe corned beef tins and, indeed, other varieties of pull-top cans, to be inherently unsafe? Will he ensure that his department pursues its interest in helping to have those redesigned by the food and packaging industry? Will he also note that the report shows that some 6 million of us each year attend accident and emergency units in hospital, and that some 90 children under the age of five die as a result of accidents at home? Is he satisfied that the Government's accident taskforce has sufficient resources and powers to reduce the incidence of these accidents at home?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord has asked me a Question about corned beef cans. I have been answering questions about them all my life and I regard them as one of my real areas of expertise.
	There is a real problem about corned beef cans. They have a trapezoidal shape and a key kind of ring. The DTI has done much work on this issue in giving further instructions and also special coatings for the cans which enable the corned beef to be extracted more easily. There has in fact been a remarkable drop in accidents with corned beef cans. They have fallen from 8,720 per year out of 26,000 accidents caused by all tins to 3,091 out of 19,000. I should point out that the really dramatic decrease came after 1997.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether ring-pull cans are safer than ordinary cans which are opened with a tin-opener? Which is safest?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am not sure that I can give exact details between the different kinds of can, but the one which is used for corned beef is particularly disliked by people, mainly because they lose the keys and then attack the corned beef can with whatever is at hand. If the noble Baroness would like to pursue this point, I can probably find her some detailed statistics.

Lord Razzall: My Lords, will the Minister allow me to rescue him from his worldwide expertise on the topic of corned beef and ask a slightly wider question? Does he agree that, taking the nub of the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Harrison—working for a safer world—a reduction in the use of products which have an impact on the environment would be highly desirable? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that clear, verified information is available to consumers on the environmental impact of such products?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that goes wider than my knowledge of corned beef; it strays into a completely different department and area—the impact on the environment. This report is very specifically about recording accidents which take place in accident and emergency departments of hospitals. The impact on the environment is a totally different question.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if, having taken off one end of the corned beef can with the twisty thing provided—assuming that you have not lost it—you then take a common, ordinary, household tin-opener and take off the other end, it is very easy to push the corned beef out of the tin without any danger to yourself?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Yes, my Lords, I was aware of that, and I am very glad that that essential piece of information is passed round for the benefit of this House.

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, does the Minister agree, as the noble Baroness has demonstrated, that most home accidents are avoidable, arising out of carelessness, and that therefore paying attention is one of the best cures?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I totally agree. These statistics on accidents are extremely fascinating; they prove that the British public can use practically anything in this world to hurt themselves with. It is understandable that there are an estimated 55 accidents a year from putty, while toothpaste accounts for 73. However, it is rather bizarre that 823 accidents are estimated to be the result of letters and envelopes. It is difficult to understand how they can be the cause of such serious plight. I agree with the noble Baroness that it would be helpful if people paid careful attention.

Baroness Strange: My Lords, does the Minister agree that sardine tins and anchovy tins are also very difficult to open with their tin-openers?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I think I will just agree with the noble Baroness on that question.

Unsolicited e-mails

Lord Mitchell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are their plans to reduce the growth in spam (unsolicited e-mails).

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I hope noble Lords will appreciate how I move seamlessly from corned beef to spam.
	We aim to implement by the end of October this year the privacy and electronic communications directive. This includes requirements that unsolicited e-mails may be sent to individuals only for the purpose of direct marketing with their prior consent, except where there is existing customer relationship between the sender and the addressee. Consultation on the draft regulations started on 27th March and closes on 19th June.

Lord Mitchell: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. Unsolicited e-mails, known as "spam", now account for half of all e-mails in this country. In the United States, they account for 70 per cent. Spam, whether it is nuisance advertising or hardcore pornography is literally choking the Internet. Will the Minister expand on his Answer? Do the Government intend to follow the example of the United States Senate in introducing legislation specifically prohibiting unsolicited e-mails?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we believe this to be a serious issue. The fact that a European regime has now been agreed opens the door to bilateral agreements between the EU and other countries, which is clearly very helpful. The European Commission is keen to pursue that.
	There is now a big movement to stop spam in the United States. Twenty-six states have legislated and, although I do not believe that any action has been taken at the federal level, there has been a recent forum from the Federal Trade Commission on the subject.
	We take the matter seriously. If measures are to be effective, it is vitally important that the international dimension is taken account of.

Lord Renton: My Lords, will the Minister explain how it is that an inedible tinned food that lasted for ever and was supplied to those on active service can become an unsolicited e-mail, bearing in mind that some of us wish to be protected from having an e-mail?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am afraid that I have not been able to find out why the term "spam" is used, but that is the meaning it now has. It is a matter that should be taken very seriously because it not only clutters up computers but involves a great deal of very unpleasant advertising to do with easy credit, pornography and miracle diets. That is offensive to people, and we should try to reduce it.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I can help the Minister with the origin of the word. It comes from aficionados of Monty Python, and the famous song, "Spam, spam, spam, spam". It has been picked up by the Internet community and is used as a description of rubbish on the Internet.
	More seriously, is the Minister aware that up to 85,000 pieces of unsolicited e-mail are received by the Parliamentary Communications Directorate each month? Will he join me in congratulating the directorate on its valiant efforts to filter out that menace, given that a high proportion of it is rubbish advertising from the United States and that some of it consists of profane material? The directorate is battling against a rising tide; the Government's assistance is needed in combating it.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am happy to commend that course of action. As I say, it is a serious issue. We need to take all steps against it.

Lord Razzall: My Lords, given the Government's concern about voter turnout in elections and their commitment to increasing the use of Internet voting and campaigning, does the Minister consider that further restrictions on unsolicited e-mails would be contrary to that objective?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, no, not at all. I cannot see that it helps anyone in any activity, including voting, to have their computers flooded with this often quite distasteful material. It takes up a large capacity—some 40 per cent of e-mails around the world, according to my figures. It takes up a considerable amount of space for Internet service providers and is a very poor use of the infrastructure.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, do the Government have any plans to restrict unsolicited faxes? My fax paper is always being wasted by people who send me faxes I do not want. I do not know whether they could be called "corned beef" or something, but I have had enough of them.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, faxes are already covered, in exactly the same way, by the existing telecoms data protection directive. The essential nature of the privacy directive is to extend that into the question of e-mails.

Lord Haskel: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that modern fax machines are equipped to refuse faxes that have no return telephone number? In that way, many unsolicited faxes are filtered out. Is there any way in which the Internet system could operate similarly? For example, can the Internet service providers filter out e-mails that do not have a return address on them?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there is a lot of action that Internet service providers can take to help customers to protect themselves. They can and indeed do offer spam filtering and blocking options. However, we do not want to specify what ISPs must do, because different people require different levels of protection. There is a strong commercial incentive to ISPs to offer a range of solutions, and they are keen to do so to cut costs.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister think of a name for the enormous amount of unsolicited ordinary mail we receive?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, when I have a moment I shall bend my mind to that question.

Eurogroup (euro-zone Finance Ministers)

Lord Newby: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What consequences they believe will flow from the decision to exclude United Kingdom officials from the future work of the "Eurogroup" of euro-zone Finance Ministers.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have recognised, since the Luxembourg European Council in 1997, that member states participating in the single currency will want to meet from time to time to discuss certain issues to do with sharing a currency, but it is important to remember that ECOFIN is the sole decision-making body on economic policy co-ordination. Whenever matters of common interest are discussed, all member states will be present. The UK is already playing an active role in helping to shape the European agenda; the leading part played by the UK in the Lisbon economic reform strategy is a case in point. The Government's positive approach to Europe means that we are able to play a full part in shaping EU policies.

Lord Newby: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, would he accept that Britain is losing the opportunity to influence the development of a number of key economic and financial policies, not least the operations of the European Central Bank and the growth and stability pact, by not being a member of the Eurogroup? Although ECOFIN is technically the body that takes the decisions, in reality the Eurogroup, meeting on the day before ECOFIN, is where the real deals are hammered out. ECOFIN is increasingly becoming a rubber stamp.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is simply an assertion. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, has no evidence for it whatever. Decisions cannot be taken by the Eurogroup; they can be taken only by ECOFIN.

Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister telling us that the Labour Party has not yet discovered the device of the pre-meeting?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have been in the Labour Party for more than 50 years, and I am well used to devices within the Labour Party to avoid democratic decision making. Fortunately, with the advent of one member one vote, nearly all those devices have become inoperative.
	In the case that we are discussing, the reality is that no decisions can be taken other than by ECOFIN. If, for example, decisions have to be taken by qualified majority voting, they cannot be taken by the Eurogroup. They certainly will not be able to be taken by the Eurogroup after enlargement.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can the Minister explain to the House why the decision was taken?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, was referring not to a decision but to an article in the Financial Times on 29th April in which it was reported that it was proposed that United Kingdom officials should no longer attend the working group of officials—not the Eurogroup itself, which Ministers have never attended. There are purely practical reasons for that, in that at the moment there are three member states outside the euro-zone and within a year there will be 13. Noble Lords can imagine, in such circumstances, what it would be like to do simultaneous translation in Estonian.

Lord Saatchi: My Lords, will the Minister clarify one of the matters he mentioned? Will it be the ECOFIN group of Finance Ministers or the Eurogroup of Finance Ministers who decide on the future structure of funding the NHS?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Neither, my Lords; nor will publications by the European Central Bank.

Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister really saying that the decisions that ECOFIN takes at its meetings are not affected by the fact that Ministers from the euro-zone countries will have met the night before and decided the position they will take at ECOFIN? Is he really saying that Britain's interests are not affected by the fact that we are currently outside the euro?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are two different questions there, the first of which is what happens at the meetings before ECOFIN. British officials have since the beginning seen the agenda for those meetings. So the answer that I give to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, is that, yes, I can say that the decisions are taken by ECOFIN and not by any pre-meeting. The answer to the second question is the wider issue of the advantages and disadvantages of being in the euro-zone. The Chancellor will be making a Statement on that matter within the next month.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, given the Minister's reply, can he explain why, a short time ago, in the magazine the Business in this country and in the Economist there were specific references to the fact that, as a senior Danish diplomat said, the real decisions are taken not in ECOFIN but in the Eurogroup?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, journalists will report what they hear or what they think they hear. The Government are not responsible for newspaper reports.

Crossrail

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, namely:
	Whether Her Majesty's Government will repeat the Statement already given elsewhere by the Secretary of State for Transport on the decision not to proceed with the Crossrail project.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government's decision remains as I stated in the Answer that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, on 28th April. The Government continue to support Crossrail. There has been no decision not to proceed.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, one has to be very grateful for that reassurance—the noble Lord is really saying that there was absolutely nothing in the report in The Times which indicated that the project is likely to be postponed until 2020. I should just like to ask him whether he is aware of how grateful your Lordships were for the nugget of information that he released in the course of his Answer—that, after all the talk, reports, consultation and consultants, a final business plan will be available in July. However, what I should really like to know is this. Why was he not in a position to add something of what must have been in the Secretary of State's mind?
	I should like, if I may, to introduce into this air of timelessness an air of topicality. In view of the report today that the Prime Minister is prepared to support the Olympic Games for 2012, he should be aware of the fact that although he can have Crossrail without the Olympics, he cannot have the Olympics without Crossrail.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I repeat what I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. The Government cannot be responsible for the way in which journalists interpret what they hear or what they think they hear. Let me explain what happened. On the day after I answered a Question about Crossrail in this House, the Secretary of State was addressing the Social Market Foundation on a totally different subject. On the way out, he was waylaid by journalists, quite legitimately, and he made five points about Crossrail: that the Government supported it in principle; that it would cost £10 billion to £15 billion to build; that we would have to consider how to fund it; that if London and the South East continued to grow, we would need an east-west link; and that no decision had been made on whether a hybrid Bill was required.
	Not a single thing that I said was in conflict with anything that the Secretary of State subsequently said. Even if something that the Secretary of State said was in conflict and I had known about it in advance, looking back at the time when the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, was Minister of Transport and then Minister of Transport Industries, would he have been happy to have his junior Ministers—the noble Lords, Lord Heseltine and Lord Kelvedon, or Lady Young and Lord Sandford—giving advance notice of things that he was going to say the next day as Secretary of State?

Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the interesting thing about why the Secretary of State did not give advance notice is that he did not have the faintest idea that he was going to say it? As the Minister rightly says, the Secretary of State came out of a conference on a totally different subject, spoke to an experienced journalist and made the off-the-cuff comments which were picked up. Does the Minister agree that it is not surprising that such a statement on a £15 billion project—which is itself an integral part of a £110 billion project—had a degree of sensitivity about it? Perhaps the Minister could have a chat with his colleague about taking these matters a bit more seriously. Secondly, as I asked him on the previous occasion, is he still satisfied with the way in which the management of these interdependent, massive projects is being carried out?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in his second question the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, is going way beyond the subject of the Private Notice Question. Perhaps—in order to be helpful to the House as always—I was being a little too helpful about what the Secretary of State said. The important point as regards this Private Notice Question is that, the day after I answered Questions in the House, the Secretary of State said nothing which was in conflict with what I said and made no new announcement of the kind which is not implied but stated in the Question.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I think that I was the only Member of your Lordships' House who was at that conference and heard the Secretary of State. It might be helpful if I say that, although the subject was discussed, nothing that was said would contravene what my noble friend said in the House a day or two before. The only question was whether some finance could be raised from other sources such as gains in property value. I am very surprised to hear the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, which indicates that the Secretary of State is reported to have said something completely different after the conference.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Precisely, my Lords.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, is not the reason why my noble friend Lord Peyton gets so exercised about these matters that, time after time, particularly as regards the Department for Transport, we see announcements being made outside Parliament, very often when Ministers themselves have not been properly briefed? What is the noble Lord doing to ensure that this House is properly informed before statements are made in public outside?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has any evidence of statements being made outside by the Department for Transport before Parliament has been informed and on which Ministers are not properly briefed, I have no doubt that he will let me know.

Business

Lord Grocott: With permission, my Lords, I should like to make two brief announcements, the first about a Statement on Northern Ireland. It is likely that, later this evening, there will be a Statement in another place on Northern Ireland. It could be quite late this evening and it is impossible for me to say when. All I can say now is that it will be repeated by my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House as soon as convenient after it has been made in another place.
	Secondly, I am able to give some information on recess dates. The House will remember that I announced possible dates for the Whitsun Recess as long ago as 18th November 2002 and referred to them again in a short Statement on 5th March. I am now able to confirm that, subject as always to the progress of business, which includes the three Motions to be moved shortly, the House will rise for the Whitsun Recess on Thursday, 22nd May, and return on Monday, 2nd June. Starred Questions on Thursday 22nd May will be at 11 o'clock.
	I now turn to the Summer Recess—a glorious thought! On 25th November last year the House resolved—I am sure that the House will remember this resolution—that,
	"subject to the requirements of business, in 2003 the Summer Recess should begin not later than the middle of July and the House should sit for two weeks in September".—[Official Report, 25/11/02; col. 565.]
	I am aware that since that time scholars and other learned people have debated what precisely is meant by the middle of July. The Whips Office has analysed the matter and has come to the conclusion that the middle of July and, therefore, the date on which the Summer Recess will begin, subject to the progress of business, will be Thursday, 17th July. As everyone in my post always adds, that is subject to the requirements of business. I am making exactly the same comment as all my predecessors in this post. However, to be slightly more specific, the date of 17th July in particular is dependent on the progress of Bills in Committee on the Floor of the House. The two Bills progressing—if I may use that word—in Committee on the Floor of the House at present are the Sexual Offences Bill and the Communications Bill. For completeness I repeat what I said on 5th March about the September sitting; that is, that we envisage that the House will sit from 8th to 18th September.

Courts Bill [HL]

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
	Clauses 1 to 6, Schedule 1, Clauses 7 to 31, Schedule 2, Clauses 32 to 40, Schedule 3, Clauses 41 to 60, Schedule 4, Clauses 61 to 91, Schedule 5, Clauses 92 to 99, Schedules 6 and 7, Clauses 100 to 102.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Railways and Transport Safety Bill

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Bill

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee.—(Lord Rooker.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Extradition Bill

Lord Filkin: rose to move, That the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, this Bill will benefit greatly from scrutiny in Grand Committee. It is legally complex and it requires detailed consideration and dispassionate argument rather than rhetoric or humour. Compared with the Chamber, Grand Committee provides more time, a less adversarial atmosphere, better facilities, more direct engagement with officials and a better view for the public.
	The Bill was published in draft and received pre-legislative scrutiny by the Commons Home Affairs Committee and by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. If necessary, I shall speak later about our recent experience of the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill in Grand Committee. I believe that those who took part in it thought that it was an exemplary example of scrutiny by this House.
	The Bill is not about the principle of extradition, in which this country has participated for over 100 years, but about the processes. It seeks to make those processes fair to justice and fair to the individuals charged. It is precisely because of the fine balance of that endeavour that a considered process in Grand Committee is a first-class process for considering the Bill. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee.—(Lord Filkin.)

Viscount Bledisloe: rose to move, as a manuscript amendment to the Motion, at the end to insert—
	", save for Part 1, which shall be committed to a Committee of the Whole House".

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I describe this as a manuscript amendment although, thanks to the good offices of the Public Bill Office, it is available in type. I hope that most of your Lordships have it.
	The purpose of the amendment is very simple; that is, to ensure that the Committee stage of Part 1 of the Bill, which deals with the European arrest warrant, remains on the Floor of the House and is not removed to the Moses Room and subjected to the procedure of the Grand Committee. As I say, Part 1 contains the provisions which introduce into British law the European arrest warrant which means that extradition to other European Union countries will be virtually automatic subject to certain very limited exceptions.
	The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, has just said that the Bill is about processes not principles. If he describes the principle as "some extradition is a good thing and should happen", I suppose that he can say that the Bill is about processes. But beyond that very broad principle the Bill completely changes the system of extradition. It means that, subject to very limited exceptions, a warrant issued by any European country for the extradition of someone in this country will go through on the nod. That is a total change from extradition as we know it.
	Whatever one thinks of the overall merits of that concept, there can be no doubt that introducing the European arrest warrant constitutes a very major change to our existing laws and one which has caused considerable concern to a large number of people who are entitled to have their views seriously considered. The matter has also aroused considerable public disquiet and concern, perhaps partly through a mistaken belief that the new law will allow foreign policemen to break into one's bedroom and drag one away in one's pyjamas to a Greek court, but also for more substantial reasons which are matters of substance.
	I give an example of that concern. The European arrest warrant has been subject to two reports of your Lordships' Select Committee on European affairs. Those reports stated that the proposal raised important questions which they recommended should be debated in your Lordships' House. I shall say no more on the Select Committee as I notice that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, who chaired the relevant sub-committee is present. Following those reports debates took place and many speakers on all sides of the House expressed concerns about numerous aspects and urged the Government to resolve them before the latter committed themselves. It is fair to say that some of the difficulties have been resolved but others have not.
	Since publication of the Bill it has been the subject of a report of your Lordships' Constitution Select Committee. That committee reported,
	"The extensive review of extradition law proposed by the Bill was a matter of constitutional significance".
	When the idea of a constitution committee was mooted the Government gave it warm support, but they are not giving much warm support to the Constitution Committee's assertion that the Bill raises matters of constitutional significance by ignoring that assertion and hustling the Bill to the Moses Room to be treated as if it were a matter of technical detail.
	The Bill's Second Reading took place last Thursday. I believe that there were 16 speakers. They had varying degrees of enthusiasm or opposition to the concept of the Bill but virtually every speaker drew attention to serious specific matters which would require reconsideration, and probably amendment, at the Committee stage. Even the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, who is an enthusiastic supporter of the concept, listed four separate matters on which we,
	"should look for better assurances from the Government".—[Official Report, 1/5/03; col. 879.]
	He also referred to numerous other problems to be explored in Committee.
	So many different points were made on Part 1 that even in his excellent 25-minute speech the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, in replying to the debate, was unable to deal with many of them. So we do not even know the Government's position on a large number of these matters. It is absolutely plain from that debate and from the matters that I have already mentioned that there will be many amendments.
	I hope that that brief introduction demonstrates that Part 1 constitutes a serious constitutional issue on which there will be many amendments which are not of a technical, specialist and lawyerly nature but which concern the basic rights and liberties of our citizens. I suggest that matters of that kind should be taken on the Floor of the House, and not sent to Grand Committee for consideration out of the public gaze merely by those who take a specialist and technical interest in the Bill.
	There is another, separate point. At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, indicated that the Government would bring forward amendments in Committee—indeed, they gave an undertaking to do so—to improve the position on dual criminality. That is the question of whether one can be hauled off to a foreign court for an offence that was fundamentally committed in this country—for example, whether one could be taken to a foreign court to be tried for publishing an article in, let us say, the Spectator, because a few copies of it appeared in that country and were alleged to offend against that country's laws against what there was called racism or xenophobia.
	Those will be important amendments. Unless they go a very long way, it seems likely that they will be extremely controversial. Of course, no amendment can be made in Grand Committee save by absolutely everyone's consent. A single voice against prevents any amendment in Grand Committee. It would be a travesty if the Bill came back on Report without government amendments, so that the House could not consider them as part of the Bill until Third Reading.
	I hope that that makes a fairly powerful case as to why the Bill should be taken on the Floor of the House. No doubt in reply the Government will say, first, that the matter has been agreed through the usual channels. With the greatest respect and admiration that one has for the noble Lords who compose the usual channels—I am sure that they are extremely useful people for deciding how our business shall be timed, when we shall have our lunch, tea and dinner, and so on—they are not the proper body to decide how constitutional Bills shall be treated and that they shall be moved from the Floor of the House.
	Secondly, I am sure that the Government will say that they have an awful lot of legislation to get through. I was interested to hear a moment ago the Government Chief Whip giving what was not a very subtle or veiled indication that it might cost noble Lords their holiday if they agreed to the amendment. I hope that noble Lords will not succumb to that sort of bullying.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I do not use the word pejoratively. I suppose that it is perfectly legitimate to say that we will not get our holiday if we agree, but our duty is to scrutinise the Bill properly. If that costs us our holiday, I suppose that we will have to bite the bullet and face it, but I do not believe that it really will.

Earl Russell: My Lords, has the noble Viscount ever heard the words "for the Recess" moved without the words "subject to the conduct of business"?

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the noble Earl is of course right, which is why I say that I doubt that it will make much difference. However, the Chief Whip did rather stress the inclusion of how noble Lords decided on the Motions today. I took that to be a slight nudge on the Bills. I am not complaining or criticising; I merely seek to anticipate the answers that I fear that I shall get.
	I hope that noble Lords will take the matter as serious. Part 1 of the Bill ought to be considered on the Floor of the House, and the remainder can properly go to the Moses Room. I beg to move.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will reconsider the suggestion that the Bill be referred to a Grand Committee. I listened with a great deal of interest at Second Reading last week. The Bill is not on my particular subject, but it was an excellent debate. A number of points made by noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, and many others—led me to believe that the measure was very controversial indeed.
	I speak from my experience of working on Bills in Grand Committee. I remember the then Employment Bill in particular, which it was felt was not controversial but later turned out to be very controversial. That meant that we spent an awful lot of time in Grand Committee when it would have been a great deal better had the points that we wanted to raise in amendments been debated in Committee on the Floor of the House.
	I know that one can have votes in Grand Committee, but one does not, generally speaking. The assumption is that one will not do, which has a psychological effect on the way in which debate is conducted. Bills of such substance and controversy—the Bill really is very important, as has been said—would be much better debated by the House as a whole in Committee on the Floor of the House. I therefore hope that the Minister will give some consideration to what has been said this afternoon.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, we should be very grateful for the comments of the noble Baroness, who has not left me with very much to say. I appreciate that it is now well established that a number of Bills should go to Grand Committee. However, the Bill, with its constitutional implications, its implications for the liberty of the subject, and all the controversy that it has attracted because of the European arrest warrant, is really the last sort of Bill to be treated in such a way.
	Bills in Grand Committee do not get the same publicity as Bills taken on the Floor of the House. It is a sad commentary on how another place now deals with its business that this important Bill has arrived in the House having attracted very little attention from the press, or indeed from Members of Parliament in another place. If the Government are saying that no other Bills are available to go to Grand Committee, so the Bill must go there to allow them to complete their legislative programme, that is a sad commentary on the way in which they are managing our affairs.
	The Government's programme is obviously overloaded. They should put their house in order and have a programme of a scale that can be dealt with properly. The Bill will not be dealt with properly if it is treated as a merely technical Bill that can, so far as its Committee stage is concerned, be safely dealt with in Grand Committee where no amendments can be carried to a vote.
	The noble Viscount should be commended for approaching the matter in a spirit of compromise. I hope that the Government will either accept the amendment or, perhaps even better, withdraw their Motion so that there can be further discussions through the usual channels to try to sort something out.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, before the noble Viscount made his proposed amendment known, I wrote to the Minister to ask him not to press his Motion to send the Bill to a Grand Committee. I have three reasons that I would like to outline briefly to the House, and I hope that they will receive some support along with the amendment.
	First, Part 1 of the Bill—I appreciate that the whole Bill might be involved as a matter of convenience, but Part 1 is picked out by the amendment—is controversial. For medical reasons, I was unable to be present in the House last Thursday at Second Reading, but no one who reads that debate can fail to notice that highly controversial individual human rights issues were raised from the Cross Benches, most particularly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington. If there is any ground on which the case should be supported, it is that I found myself in agreement with him.
	The noble and learned Lord made a most powerful case, along with noble Lords from the Conservative Back Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, said that it would be a pity if the Bill were sent to the empty theatre of the Moses Room. Speeches were made on all sides of the House—including by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and from these Benches—on points overlapping controversial matters relating to human rights. We had previously received reports, not only from the Constitution Committee but from the Home Affairs Committee of another place and from your Lordships' European Union Committee; and there are outstanding issues from the speech made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, on 23rd April last year.
	My noble friend Lord Filkin, said at Second Reading that the Government intend to bring forward in Committee most important amendments on the principle of dual criminality as regards which there could be a no more fundamental issue than that of human rights. These matters need proper scrutiny—that means a proper Committee stage.
	My second argument is that this proposal would lead to a Committee stage that would not be a proper Committee stage. That is not to say that I am in any sense opposed to the reforms of my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House—indeed, I warmly supported them. But to press matters such as this into Grand Committee could ruin those reforms. The Government should pay attention to that point.
	My noble friend Lady Turner referred to the fact that some of us had long and unhappy experience of the remission of a controversial Bill—the Employment Bill 2002—to a Grand Committee, which was a mistake. Your Lordships will know that it is impossible to have Divisions in a Grand Committee. It is not held in the Chamber. Therefore, debate is inadequate. It is stultified. In the case of the Employment Bill, I found that the preparation of ministerial answers was not so good as it sometimes is in the Chamber.
	More particularly, the Grand Committee is not attended by noble Lords whose minds are not made up. In 26 years of debating some very controversial legislation in Committee in this Chamber, I have found that people attend whose minds are not made up, who are not specialists in the subject. One often has to address one's arguments to them. In Grand Committee that simply does not happen.
	I want to say immediately—because the point has been misrepresented in the past—that in making this comment I am not in any sense criticising Hansard, but it is a fact that the resources of Hansard in Grand Committee are not as full as they are in the Chamber. On one occasion, when dealing with the Employment Bill, we were asked to repeat our speeches because the recording tape had broken down during an earlier period and there was no record; therefore we had to make it up again.
	It was said to us then—and mutterings from the prefects' room begin to indicate to us now—"What are you making a fuss about? You can have your Divisions on Report"—or even, these days, at Third Reading. Some noble Lords say "Hear, hear"; but the logic of that is not to have a proper Committee stage in the Chamber for most Bills.
	One of the worst developments in the past 25 years is that Report and Third Reading have become yet another Committee stage. It is Committee stage in the Chamber which is the mark of this House. It is rare for me to think that, but it is the merit of this House that the Committee stage of Bills dealing with controversial human rights issues takes place in the Chamber.
	That leads me to my third point. I hesitate to say this as I see heads nodding on the Opposition Front Bench, but this problem falls not only, indeed perhaps not mainly, from the hands of the Government. It is agreed in the usual channels, and that means, first of all, by those on the Front Bench of the Official Conservative Opposition. Yet at Second Reading last Thursday the Official Opposition made the bold—some would say extreme, as I think it is—proposal that in Committee the whole of Part 1 dealing with the European arrest warrant should be excised from the Bill. But having made that proposal they now appear to have agreed to a process in Grand Committee whereby no amendment on that or any other matter can be put to a Division.
	That is a mystifyingly self-contradictory intellectual position which should not be allowed to control your Lordships' procedure. In a post-Freudian age it would be quite wrong for the Government to take advantage of the eruption in the usual channels of some self-emasculatory anxiety to determine the procedures of the House.
	My submission is that in those circumstances it becomes the duty—and we should be grateful to the noble Viscount for expressing this in his amendment—of those of us who serve only as spear carriers in the shadows of the Back Benches to ask your Lordships' House to give a proper Committee stage to a Bill which manifestly involves controversial issues of human rights.
	It is not a question of being for or against the European arrest warrant in principle. I am all in favour of bringing people to justice when they flee to the Costa del Sol, but there are issues in the Bill relating to the mechanisms of the European arrest warrant which require that Parliament properly debates them and properly decides them.
	As my noble friend the Minister said at Second Reading, Parliament is sovereign, and Parliament can do what it wishes in this respect, and that includes your Lordships' House. In the light of those three submissions I earnestly ask my noble friend the Minister not to press the Motion today but to take soundings in various corners of the House as to why these objections have arisen and how they should be dealt with, and to come back with a consensual and agreed procedure which we can then follow.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene at this point, but there are new points that can be made and I understand that the debate is open-ended.
	As someone who has served much longer in another place than in this House, I should be properly bashful about arguing about the procedures of this House. But the arguments advanced by the noble Viscount seem enormously strong. I say that with some knowledge of how the conventions have operated in another place over 35 years in relation to the discussion of constitutional Bills. There was a convention that such matters should normally be considered by that House as a whole and not in Committee. It became latterly, when there was rather a lot of constitutional legislation, a convention more honoured in the breach than in the observance. That seemed to me at the time to be an unfortunate tendency. It would be unfortunate if one of the most attractive aspects of the procedure of this House were to follow in that direction.
	The substance of the Bill before us is in a sense not important. I agree with those who have already said that whether or not they agree with the arrest warrant is not the issue. What is important is the manner in which the arrest warrant legislation was decided in the European Union—which, there too, was novel. That is a subject that merits further consideration, because it is a portent of more to come, and the Bill should be considered in the traditional manner in this House.
	There is one aspect of the business of this House which is potentially superior to that of another place. In another place, whether a Bill is or is not constitutional is not decided by Erskine May, or indeed, I believe, by anyone other than the Government, relying on the support of their Members. In this place, an important step has been taken to determine whether or not a Bill is constitutional. I refer to the setting up of the Constitution Committee. We owe that committee considerable respect and should listen to its advice; that is, that there are significant constitutional issues in this regard that merit consideration. We should follow that advice and, acting on it, consider these matters in the way in which the noble Viscount suggests. I hope that his powerful arguments—I have rarely listened to a speech in which the points were more carefully marshalled—will be given full and deliberate weight.

Lord Scott of Foscote: My Lords, I support the noble Viscount's amendment. In view of what has already been said in support of the amendment, I confine myself to one matter of particular importance. No one doubts the constitutional importance of the Extradition Bill or the fact that one of the most important aspects of the Bill is the abolition of the safeguard of dual criminality in relation to extradition to category 1 countries—that is, by and large, member states of the European Union—over a whole raft of categories of offences, of which there are some 32 in all. A feature of the categories is that they cover matters in which there is no harmonisation between the criminal laws of the various member states.
	Conduct falling within one or other of the categories may be criminal in one member state but not in another. An example involves the category of racism and xenophobia. I shall concentrate on the racism half of that composite expression because no one has provided any explanation of what xenophobia adds to racism. Within that category, there are relevant types of conduct in, for example, Germany, but not in this country. Holocaust denial is the obvious example.
	The proposal is that dual criminality will not be necessary for the extradition of someone in this country to another member state, notwithstanding the fact that the conduct in question was not criminal according to the law of this country. That is justified—and can only be justified—by the proposition that all member states share common values and common respect for human rights, guaranteed by the European convention. Each therefore owes to the other mutual respect and recognition of the criminal laws and procedures in each country.
	That justification works where the conduct of which one is speaking is conduct committed within the territory of the member state in question. However, some types of conduct cannot be so easily classified. Some types of conduct are committed partly in one country and partly in another, and the conduct as a whole may be said to constitute the offence in question. That is particularly so when one considers what constitutes various offences that some member states may have within the "racism and xenophobia" category.
	Currently, the Bill's provisions do not cater satisfactorily for cases in which the conduct crosses borders in the way I have described. Let us suppose a case involving publication on the Internet by which there was publication in this country but downloading in another member state. We might consider the case of newspaper articles: an article may be written and published in this country but distributed in another member state. Let us suppose that the content of the article on the Internet would be regarded as criminal in the other member state because it contains, for example, holocaust denial. Is that a case in which we should have to extradite without the requirement of dual criminality to the foreign country in question, notwithstanding the fact that a substantial part of the conduct had taken place in this country?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, for giving way. I answered those important questions in the European Union Committee last week and did so a second time in the Second Reading debate. On the specific examples that he gave—they relate to the nature of the Bill rather than our current debate—I have already answered the point and put beyond doubt the fact that the concerns that he is raising will not be issues because we will move amendments to that effect.

Lord Scott of Foscote: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I was trying to set the background before coming to the very careful and clear evidence that he gave only last Wednesday to the sub-committee of the European Union Committee of which I have the honour to be the current chairman. He made the position clear and gave assurances—no one doubts those assurances—that the Government will introduce amendments so that there will not be extradition where a substantial part of the conduct, albeit not all of it, took place in this country. However, that is the vice, as I understand the procedure, of sittings in Grand Committee. We have not yet seen this highly important amendment, but it must be considered by Members of this House. It may be necessary to suggest alternative wording to that important amendment; it may be thought that one could more satisfactorily achieve the aim—the common aim of all—in that way rather than with the wording the Minister proposes.
	I respectfully suggest that that is a reason why the Bill should continue to be considered in a Committee of this House and should not be sent to Grand Committee. I am grateful to the Minister for anticipating the point that I was going to make. That is the point of importance that I suggest justifies support for the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, when this issue came to the committee in November of the year before last, we were not able to conduct proper scrutiny; there was pressure of time and we were assured that that would be remedied by proper consideration in this House when it came to legislation. For that reason also—because scrutiny was not satisfactorily completed—it is vital that we handle this Bill on the Floor of the House. That is where it should be.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, there is no dispute about the significance of this Bill but I do not agree with the noble Viscount's amendment. Let me explain why.
	Perhaps I should first declare an interest. I have attended, I believe, three Grand Committee sittings in their entirety on three different Bills. I do not know whether any other noble Lord has done so. I speak with a little experience of how Grand Committees work. I am satisfied that the process of scrutiny in Grand Committee is thorough: in many ways, it gives more opportunity for proper discussion and debate than does the more formal context of debates in a Committee of this House. It is not as if we are short of the opportunity to move amendments at later stages of the Bill. That contrasts with the situation in another place—I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, in this regard—where the opportunities on Report are limited by the Speaker's selection of amendments; we know that opportunities are few and far between there. There is also no opportunity to amend at Third Reading in another place. In contrast, we have a wonderful opportunity to debate and vote on amendments on Report and at Third Reading. We have adequate opportunities in this place.
	We do not need a further Committee stage that is taken on the Floor of the House as a matter of course. Indeed, I believe that, as a matter of course, Bills should go to Grand Committee. That is a better way of debating the details and of testing the Government's view in order that amendments can be tabled at a later stage. We should not indulge ourselves in the luxury of being able to have the same debate three times on the Floor of the House. Twice is surely enough.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, there is only one fundamental reason—it is a short one—why the Bill and Part 1, which contains points of principle, should be taken on the Floor of the House. We are not concerned, if I may say so with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, with whether the scrutiny in Grand Committee in the Moses Room is first rate or not. In my opinion, it is first rate. However, that is not the issue. The issue is that on points of principle, and for the reasons given throughout the House, the Committee stage should be on the Floor of the House.

Lord Carter: My Lords, I shall explain briefly why the noble Viscount's amendment, and a number of points made in this debate, are wrong. A Grand Committee is a Committee of the Whole House in exactly the same way as is a Committee in the Chamber. Every Peer who wishes to attend or speak may do so. I cannot believe that if noble Lords are so interested in the merits of this issue, they cannot walk to the Moses Room or a Committee Room upstairs to deal with the point that they want to raise. In my view, every point that has been made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, can be dealt with in a much better way in Grand Committee, where scrutiny is better.
	For obvious reasons there is more time in Grand Committee than on the Floor of the House. The only difference is that your Lordships cannot vote, a point to which I shall return in a minute. If unsatisfactory government amendments are tabled, they cannot be inserted in a Bill in Grand Committee unless such a committee is unanimous. If one voice says "No", such an amendment has to be withdrawn and brought back at Report stage. If there are alternatives, a government amendment may be brought forward in Grand Committee and considered there.
	The fallacy in the argument advanced by noble Lords is that if noble Lords wish to vote in Committee they will give the Government no chance to think again. We all know the rules of the House and once the House has made a decision noble Lords cannot return to the matter at a later stage of the Bill. If the arguments are as strong, as I am sure that they are on the part of the Bill that is causing concern, they can be advanced in Grand Committee. Then the Government will have to realise that they will have to make concessions at Report stage if they wish those issues to go through. It seems to me that the argument of principle is fallacious.
	It is easier—I say this as a former Chief Whip—between Committee stage and Report stage to get the Government to realise that they have to make concessions or they will be defeated on Report but if the decision has already been taken in Committee, the Government will have no chance to rethink. I ask your Lordships to realise that a Grand Committee is a Committee of the Whole House; all the points made there can be made again and explored; and there is not the same pressure of time as there is on the Floor of the House. But noble Lords must realise that if they force this part of the Bill onto the Floor of the House and insist on voting on it, noble Lords will give the Government no chance to make a concession.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I want to refer to how we have reached this procedure. While I was a Chief Whip in opposition, the bane of my life was the ability, by virtue of our procedures, of noble Lords to have not one or two bites but three bites at the cherry. Colleagues in the House who felt passionately about an issue, whether they lost heavily or not at the first bite in Committee, would return to the matter at Report stage and at Third Reading. One can have too much of a good thing.
	About a year ago when the decision was taken to modernise procedures I took the view that in general we wanted not just to speed up our procedures but to take account of a situation in which a small number of Members would keep a large number of Members about the House waiting for a vote. I am not as involved as other colleagues—I believe that the laughing noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, is one of them—and I am not one who understands the issues passionately. I come completely fresh to this discussion.
	However, I understand that the procedure that the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, suggests is one that has the approval of the usual channels. As someone who once was a member of the usual channels, I sometimes look aghast at the ability of people who, in general, are happy to be led by the usual channels but who reserve the right from time to time to go against that leadership. If the usual channels have recommended or agreed to or acquiesced to this procedure—I declare where I come from—that is almost good enough for me.
	However, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, when replying to the debate—I shall give way to my noble friend Lord Wedderburn when I am ready—will have the opportunity to tell the House that perhaps there are special issues in this case that deserve reconsideration. For my part I have heard nothing that justifies a change from a procedure that I and the whole House were happy to support less than 12 months ago.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, perhaps I may speak now that my noble friend is ready to give way. I was laughing not at him, but with him. Is he aware that one of the first things that was explained to me when I came to the House 26 years ago was that we did not debate issues at Report and Third Reading stages—especially at Third Reading—that had been decided in Committee. Therefore, the logic of his remarks, and unhappily the preference of the executive, is not to have Committee stage in the Chamber at all, but to send all Bills to a Grand Committee. That is the logic of the position. Therefore, my mirth was because I was sure that that was not his position, and that he too would be aware that the two or three bites at the cherry argument is non-existent.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this Motion and those previous Motions on earlier Bills are the result of a decision that the House took last summer on the recommendation of the Procedure Committee that for a two-year trial period more Bills should go to Grand Committee and that, in consequence, the House should normally rise at about 10 p.m. For our part, we do not like any Bill being committed to a Grand Committee. I certainly do not agree with the over-glowing description made by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, of the process by comparison with a Committee of the Whole House. However, we have done our best to implement the decision of the House taken last summer and we support the Motions today for that reason.
	I am well aware, as I was before this debate, that there are many noble Lords in all parts of the House who are unhappy about this Bill and the important Local Government Bill—an earlier Motion—being committed to a Grand Committee. We also know that the Government have problems with the 10 o'clock arrangement and we continue to deplore the idea that the Government can have one half of last summer's deal, which the House accepted, and not the other half. Of course, the 10 o'clock finishing time means that a Bill that may have taken four days in Committee under the old system, may now take six days. For that decision to be implemented, more Bills must to go to Grand Committees. In many cases the process also means that Report stage is likely to take longer than it would have done.
	The problem is compounded, as my noble friend Lord Waddington said earlier, by the weight of government legislation and by the fact that these days so little is reviewed in another place. The Government Chief Whip, when speaking about recess dates earlier, indicated the pressure that the Government's programme is under for all those reasons.
	In the terms of his amendment the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, calls for the consideration of the Extradition Bill in Committee to be split between the Floor of the House and a Grand Committee. Last summer the Procedure Committee considered the matter briefly, but did not accept in principle that Bills should be so split. I believe that it was right to take that view. If we split this Bill, why not split many other Bills? Frankly, I do not relish having to negotiate on every Bill which clauses should be discussed where. Different aspects of particular Bills are thought to be controversial by different groups of Peers. Furthermore, when there is controversy about an aspect of a Bill, the proposed changes often affect other parts of it as well as the immediate one that is under consideration. I also think that splitting Bills would make it even more difficult than at present for noble Lords and those outside the House to follow our proceedings from reading Hansard and so on.
	On this matter we are, as always, in the hands of the House itself. Today, I think that it should stick to the experiment that was decided upon last summer. It should review the position as a whole, including the 10 o'clock arrangements, in due course when the experiment has run at least more of its course than it has so far.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall try to be brief. I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for his honourable speech and position on the point, which is much appreciated. The Procedure Committee said in July 2002 that the Grand Committee is right for Bills of the kind considered suitable by the Rippon Group. The usual channels have agreed that this Bill passes that test. As to whether the Bill is constitutional, many Bills have elements in them which touch on the constitution, but that does not mean they are constitutional Bills. In the Commons, where constitutional Bills are normally committed to a Committee of the Whole House, this Bill was considered in Standing Committee in the usual way.
	The noble Lord, Lord Cope, is exactly right that splitting the Bill in the way proposed by the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, would be extremely complicated and damaging. It is inappropriate because many of the same issues arise in Part 2 as in Part 1. Indeed, I note that the Official Opposition's Front Bench have tabled identical amendments to both Parts 1 and 2. If the amendments were to be made we should run the risk of having the same debate twice, once in Committee on the Floor of the House and once in Grand Committee.
	I shall not respond in detail to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, on the substance of the Bill itself. This is not the place. It is not true that extradition is virtually automatic. If anything, as a country we extradite. Other countries in the European Union do not currently extradite to us, which is why there are great benefits in the Bill. The noble Viscount was right to say that I did not respond to all the points. We had about a three or four hour debate. I gave my usual commitment that every Member who speaks will have a full response in writing from me about any points that have not been fully handled on the Floor of the House before the first day of Committee. I repeat that undertaking. There can be a lot of serious amendments. In fact, it is important that there are many serious amendments in Grand Committee. That is when the process of testing starts.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, raised the amendment that I promised at the European Union scrutiny committee and again at Second Reading. I shall go further: I shall ensure that the House is aware of that amendment before we reach the first day of Committee so that all Members can see it. I can give the House the assurance that in general it will be well pleased with the amendment because it specifically addresses the issue that has been raised.
	I think that the Bill is appropriate for Grand Committee because of my experience of working with noble Lords on Opposition Benches in Grand Committee. I do not say that the procedure is easy for the Government, but it strikes me that it is a good process for scrutiny. The Government are able to listen more; are able not to resist for the sake of it; and are able to respond where appropriate.
	My noble friend Lord Carter stated the situation correctly. He pre-empted what I was going to say should the House want to persuade the Government to think again and not send the Bill to Grand Committee. On the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill—and please ask of colleagues who worked through that process—in response to the debates we had in Grand Committee we brought back amendments on Report, which progressively narrowed down the nature of the Bill. We did not dig in. We were able to give way willingly when we thought it was sensible for us to do so.
	By comparison, defeat us on the Floor of the House in Committee and noble Lords lock the Government in to conflict for no good reason. I give the House my assurance that the tone and style in which we handled the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill will be applied to this Bill. We shall listen seriously to the arguments without fear or favour. If we think that we should be persuaded, we will be persuaded and will adjust accordingly. The House will have a full opportunity to test those matters at later stages of the Bill.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I am most grateful to those noble Lords who have spoken to the amendment. I am interested to note that—I may be wrong—the only noble Lords who have spoken against the amendment are all former Whips or operators in the Whips' department, which perhaps says something about the difference between those in favour and those against.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: We have had a Whip round!

Viscount Bledisloe: I was disappointed by the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Filkin. I had hoped that he would accept the invitation addressed to him by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden. Surely, if this procedure is to work, we should not send Bills to Grand Committee where a sizeable proportion of the opinion in the House does not agree. If the Grand Committee process is to work, the Bills that go there should be Bills that virtually everyone concerned with them agrees should be dealt with in that way. If the House is going to send Bills, by reason of Front Bench majorities, that the interested and concerned Back-Benchers think should be debated on the Floor of the House, the Grand Committee procedure will not work.
	Perhaps I may say two other things. First, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Carter—

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for giving way. The same arguments were used before we went into Grand Committee with the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill. I have to say that I am satisfied that everyone who took part in the Grand Committee sessions were satisfied that all the important criteria for proper Committee scrutiny was met by that procedure on that Bill. It was certainly a controversial Bill; it was certainly a Bill that had constitutional implications; it had serious human rights implications; and it was a satisfactory process.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, having not taken part in it, I cannot comment on whether the process was satisfactory. It was—this may not be a good point and I may regret making it—a Bill of specialist interest relating, presumably, only to Northern Ireland; whereas this Bill relates to the whole of the country.
	In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, he is of course right to say that if the Government indicate clearly that they will think again, the proposer of an amendment would be mad to press it to a Division when he may get something jolly good by negotiation. But that does not mean that where positions are really entrenched, it is not much better to put it to a Division in Committee so that the matter can be resolved.
	Secondly, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, of course the Procedure Committee recommended that more Bills should be committed to Grand Committee; but that does not mean that everything should be, especially not Bills of such constitutional significance that have raised so much concern.
	My proposal that only Part 1 should remain on the Floor of the House was advanced in a spirit of compromise. Of course I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that some Bills may be difficult to split and would require the usual channels to sit down with a microscope to study them to decide whether Clause 63(b) was appropriate. But it was clear from our debate on Second Reading—which I think that the noble Lord did not hear—that Part 1 concerns a totally separate matter and that almost all the points of criticism were raised about it.
	If I am told that it is wrong to keep only Part 1 on the Floor of the House, I should be perfectly content to keep the whole Bill on the Floor of the House. I was trying to be co-operative; but this Bill is perfectly suitable for such treatment.
	We submit that this is a battle between Whip convenience and principle; and I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the manuscript amendment shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 94; Not-Contents, 172.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

Industrial Development (Financial Assistance) Bill

Read a third time and passed.

Communications Bill

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blackstone.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Lockwood) in the Chair.]
	Clause 3 [General duties of OFCOM]:
	[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 16:
	Page 3, line 29, at end insert—
	"( ) In subsection (2)(c) to (f), "television and radio services" includes all television and radio services transmitted directly to electronic communications devices via cable, satellite or dial-up modem."

Lord Dixon-Smith: I apologise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Northesk. Unfortunately, his transport arrangements were made before the Committee began its very detailed consideration of amendments. He had expected to move these amendments himself on the first day of Committee. He has rather rashly asked if I would act as substitute for him.
	It is worth repeating that my noble friend's view is that, although the amendment complements his Amendment No. 12, which was debated on the first day of Committee, it is distinct and merits separate debate. It is a much more general approach to the problem. Although last week's debate strayed into the area of content regulation—for example, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, questioned the feasibility of 9 year-olds accessing Dutch pornographic channels on their 3G telephones—it is questionable whether that provision would bite on the problem, except in so far as such content issues relate to "unwarranted infringements of privacy". This amendment, were it to find favour with the Committee, could have a direct impact. It is the "taste and decency" arm of my noble friend's amendments.
	My noble friend's main concern is whether "electronic communications network services" of media enterprises, particularly their web-based activities, fall within the scope of the Bill. We know the official answer to that. As the Minister made clear last week, they do not. The fact that they do not is a deliberate and conscious decision on the part of the Government, despite the Minister's strenuous acknowledgement that it is a problem that must be dealt with. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, put it, in the context of the Bill, that represents "a philosophical inconsistency" that generates,
	"a hard position [for the Government] to sustain".—[Official Report, 29/4/03; col. 644.]
	If, as the Minister argued, it is right and proper for Ofcom to have oversight of the radio, television and print activities of media enterprises, it follows, therefore, that Ofcom should have oversight of their web-based activities also. As the Minister said,
	"if we have provision in Clause 3(2)(f) in respect of radio and television services, there ought to be comparable provision for electronic communication network service users—there is no doubt about that".—[Official Report, 29/4/03; col. 646.]
	In principle, we are in agreement.
	All of us agree that the global nature of the Internet—it is that platform that creates the difficulty—makes it desirable that its legislative framework should flow from international agreement. That is the background to the Government's position. But my noble friend will argue that that should not prevent our making appropriate, anticipatory but not pre-emptive provision in the Bill for any forthcoming directives or ensuring that the regulatory intentions of the Bill are construed in a comprehensive and seamless way.
	There my noble friend parts company with the Government's position. The Minister appears to imply that it would be appropriate for Ofcom to have oversight of the areas represented in the amendment, but only when the final text of the relevant directives have been enacted by means of separate regulations under the European Communities Act 1972. It is a case of, "Yes, you are right, but not right now and not in this way".
	It is my noble friend's conviction that that approach will have the unfortunate effect of creating an unnecessary hiatus, both in terms of time and legislative provision, which will serve only to heap even more confusion on an already difficult situation. That leaves aside the conviction of many, including my noble friend, that the current texts of the relevant directives are, in any event, seriously flawed. To echo my noble friend Lord Brooke, it is a case of passing problems by because they are too difficult.
	The way to resolve the "philosophical inconsistency" to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, refers, and to ensure that Ofcom can operate seamlessly across all relevant platforms is to give it some measure of responsibility for the activities carried out by media enterprises via electronic communications networks.
	The amendment is fairly anodyne. Quite deliberately, my noble friend seeks to obviate the risk of Ofcom being drawn into areas beyond its remit. That is why it is linked back to the provisions of subsection (2)(c) to (f). It is conceivable, too, that the drafting may be less than perfect—that is not unusual in Back-Bench amendments—by perhaps being a little less technologically neutral than would be desirable, possibly when measured against the Government's very welcome intention not to regulate the Internet. But that is a matter of understanding and perception as much as anything else.
	The amendment's sole purpose is to give Ofcom the same oversight of the activities of media enterprises on the Net as it is already committed to in respect of television and radio in the normal broadcasting format. There is no attempt to draw the regulator into any of the wider issues of the Internet. What really matters—and it matters a great deal—is a fundamental point of principle to which we think the Government ought to attend. I beg to move.

Lord Northbrook: I support my noble friend's amendment. Following in his footsteps and in those of my noble friends Lord Peyton of Yeovil and Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, I apologise for being unable to participate in the Second Reading debate.
	I declare an interest as an amateur "fluffy"—in the parlance used by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, at Second Reading—having recently become chairman of a fledgling independent film production company. I definitely consider myself to be an amateur "techie". As a general observation on the Committee stage so far, I must say that it is remarkable how the first day demonstrated that different sides of the House agreed on many of the amendments made.
	Amendment No. 16 continues with the theme included in Amendment No. 12 and addresses the issue by a different route. It would require Ofcom to secure, in carrying out its functions, the same availability, plurality and protection of standards for satellite, cable and internet broadcasts. I know that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said, in reply to my noble friend's amendment, Amendment No. 12, and in reply to Amendment No. 10, moved by my noble friend Lady Buscombe, that there was a,
	"framework of European directives that will govern regulation of communication networks and services".—[Official Report, 29/4/03; col. 631.]
	The noble Lord stated:
	"we intend to implement the directive in the UK by means of separate regulations under the European Communities Act 1972".
	However, the noble Lord admitted, in reply to my noble friend Lord Northesk, that,
	"We started consultation on 27th March".
	It seems that the whole European process could take a long time. The Minister also admitted, when referring to the consultation:
	"we expect a large response".—[Official Report, 29/4/03; col. 647.]
	Would it not, therefore, be better to have it all in the Bill, to ensure that there is a level playing field and to provide the consumer with protection for a period of up to two years or more? Why should those forms of communication be outside Ofcom's remit, particularly when they can be received in the UK and often repeat what is broadcast by television and radio services?

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I support the amendment. There was an earlier amendment, to which I spoke, raising concerns about the Internet and other forms of electronic communication device. We heard earlier today about spam and various other forms of unpleasant e-mail and faxes that people receive. We have heard that the European directives in the making will be the means by which such things are dealt with. However, like the previous speaker, I am worried that it will take so long. In the mean time, Ofcom will be up and going.
	Increasingly, it looks to me—and, perhaps, to other noble Lords—that we will need not just a European but an international directive to cope with some of the problems that we have seen already. Getting that would take even longer. At least with an overview, without total interference with the Internet and so on, Ofcom could have the duty and ability in the long term, if it became necessary—we are told that the Bill is flexible and can adapt to any circumstances—to make some codes of conduct. It is in that spirit that we ought to think seriously about the amendment and support it.

Lord Avebury: The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, explained the amendment well and clearly. If he continues in that vein, we shall not miss the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, as we will get the benefit of his advice indirectly, via the noble Lord.
	The amendment would have a wider effect than the limited purposes that the noble Lord described. As I read it, the amendment would oblige Ofcom to secure that, whatever radio and TV services are provided, exactly the same variety should be on offer through the other media. An increasing number of people have broadband in their home, and, on the move, they will connect to the web through wireless LAN hotspots in pubs, airports, hotels, coffee bars and, now, in the whole of Soho, thanks to a bold scheme initiated by Councillor Wilder, of whom we have heard in another context, as the noble Baroness will realise. He has launched a plan for blanket coverage of central Soho, so that parking meter attendants, cleaners, noise inspectors and other officials will be able to link up to the council's IT system from anywhere in Soho. Among other benefits, the council will be able remotely to monitor noise levels around the clock with less expensive equipment and fewer staff.
	The use of wireless LAN has been given a huge boost by the advent of integrated 802.11b in the Centrino processor, launched by Intel at the beginning of this year. That means that users who buy Centrino-powered laptops and ultimately, I suppose, an AMD equivalent will be able to connect to the Internet from any one of thousands of hotspots without the use of add-on cards. It would be possible for the whole of the Palace of Westminster to be enabled for wireless LAN, so that Members and staff with new laptops could log on wirelessly from anywhere on the premises.
	Users of PCs and laptops will expect to be able to access TV and radio via their PCs or laptops, as they can to a certain extent already. With a broadband connection, one can get quite good video reception on a PC, and one can watch Colin Powell giving a press conference in Beirut or Damascus or listen to the wonderful programmes of the BBC World Service without having to tune in at the exact time of the broadcasts. In fact, one can do the same on the Internet with public service broadcasts from other countries, including US PBS, Canadian or Australian broadcasting or Spanish language webcasts live and on demand via Spanish TV, for instance. The breadth and variety of the material accessible via the Internet is already superior to what one gets on conventional TV or radio, and the disparity is likely to become greater as the bandwidth available to the public at large increases. All major broadcasters will have to have a presence on the net, and they would do so without the intervention of Ofcom, which, in any case, deals only with UK broadcasters, a small fraction of those accessible via computers.
	I suggest that, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, the amendment has some logic—in so far as, if the clause endows Ofcom with powers over radio and TV services, the powers should extend to all means of delivery of those services—it is unnecessary to extend them to the dial-up modem. That would conflict with the principle that the regulator does not have any say on what is provided on the web. Content is dealt with in paragraphs (e) and (f), and what is provided on cable or satellite is presumably already covered in the same way as for terrestrial radio and TV, and the variety is taken care of by the "must carry" provisions that we shall discuss later in Committee.

Baroness Wilcox: I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Northesk and moved so ably by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am slightly surprised by that last intervention. I had thought that it was a typical Back-Bench amendment.
	The regulatory regime that the Bill introduces gives Ofcom regulatory powers over licensed television and radio content services provided by cable and satellite delivery for reception by the general public. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is right. The Bill does not bring elements of information society services delivered by the Internet, such as webcast, into the regulatory regime. That would mean an enormous increase in regulation. If the Conservative Party wants to support that officially, it should justify that in other places.
	The amendment would also mean that 3G mobile phone services, delivered by satellite, would fall within the scope of Ofcom regulation. That is not something that the Government want. Of all new services, mobile telephones are the most individualistic. The industry recognises the problems which can exist for minors, who are enthusiastic users of mobile telephone technology, and the industry is devising a code of practice and other protective measures, which we have talked about, or restrictions on sales to adults.
	Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, legislative provision would not be needed to extend regulation. The Secretary of State can, by order, consider in the future whether regulation, as in the case of video on demand, is appropriate if these measures fail. But this is an industry in its infancy where self-regulation is the more important path.
	Clauses 230(3) and 245(2) deliberately exclude from regulation any TV or radio services provided over the Internet or via a mobile telephone. For the viewer or listener, choosing to access content by these means, on individual request, is not like using conventional TV or radio. He expects to receive content which may go beyond that on conventional cable or satellite services. As these streamed services develop, it will be increasingly difficult to distinguish those which could be clearly categorised as television or radio.
	The amendment would impose clearly inappropriate content standards, such as the availability throughout the United Kingdom of a wide range of TV and radio services which, taken as a whole, are both of high quality and calculated to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests. This is not the regulatory regime for these services.
	Variety, even of a more dubious and tasteless kind provided it is not illegal in content, is the essence of information society services and can be provided by anyone. Some people might regret some of the content and we look to the industry to continue to develop blocking devices for the protection of minors. But there we should stop.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to those who have spoken and, in particular, to my noble friend Lord Northbrook, who said that perhaps we should have some clarity on this matter on the face of the Bill. I have to tell the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that, unfortunately, whether one is a lover of spam or not, this amendment was never intended to deal with that. Personally, I always found spam indigestible and indigestible it will remain. This is not an attempt to solve that particular problem.
	I am fascinated that the implication of this amendment, as read, makes it a requirement that media, which already broadcast through conventional television or via satellite, would have to broadcast on the Internet. I did not think that that was the implication, although the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, seems to think that it is. That is not the intention. In his response, for which I am most grateful, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made it clear that the Government do not want to go into this area. However, the purpose of the amendment simply is to give Ofcom a right to look at what media companies, who already are regulated, do when they use the Internet.
	The reality is that the media and information services now use the same medium. There is no distinction between a BBC broadcast in digital form and a digital message technically going down the Internet. At some point, and somehow, we must bridge that gap. One way to do that would be the highly delightful way of deregulating media services completely. That might be the more intellectually sustainable way to do it. But I see a lot of frowns at such an anarchic thought. At least that would present a consistent position.
	We have had an interesting debate, which has not taken the position much further forward. The Committee is examining the Bill in great detail. It would be entirely superfluous to divide the Committee on this issue, although I had some pressure from my noble friend to do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 17 to 19 not moved.]

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: moved Amendment No. 20:
	Page 4, line 9, after "Kingdom" insert "of people of different ethnic origins and communities"

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: This amendment is intended to ensure that Ofcom has regard to the key role played by electronic communications in sustaining cultural diversity and promoting understanding between communities of differing ethnic origins. It is abundantly clear that Britain is fast moving towards being an ever more multi-ethnic and culturally diverse society. Those from different racial backgrounds should be and, above all, should feel themselves to be, included within the range of communities catered for by the communications industry.
	Currently, despite full consultation prior to the publication of the draft Communications Bill, the Bill is, apart from some recognition within public service broadcasting clauses, quite unspecific about cultural diversity, leaving responsibility for this primarily to Ofcom to interpret as it sees appropriate.
	The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, which requires public bodies to promote race equality and monitor the effect of such policies, will apply to Ofcom as a public body. Members of the Committee may ask, why not leave it to the good sense of Ofcom? But if the ethnic dimension of difference—so important in communication—is not specifically stated when others are, there is a danger that it will be neglected or given a lower priority. In communication, the racial aspect of diversity surely is at least as important as that of geography and disability, which are made specific Ofcom duties under the Bill.
	Your Lordships should be in no doubt that a laissez-faire approach will not work in this field. I am afraid that the experience with equal opportunities for women over the years—women form 50 per cent of the population, not 9 per cent like the different ethnic populations—shows how vital it is to have these duties specifically spelt out and acted upon if progress is to take place.
	A purely self-regulatory approach has not been found effective here, and it has not been found effective in the United States either. A Broadcasting Standards Commission (BSC)/PACT delegation to the United States in 2001 found that the two public bodies responsible there—the Department of Commerce and the Federal Communications Commission—both felt that self-regulatory measures had not been successful.
	Therefore, it is hardly surprising that a report to be published by the Broadcasting Standards Commission and the Independent Television Commission—chaired by my noble friend, Lady Prashar—emphasises the importance of cultural diversity specifically written into the initial regulatory agenda of Ofcom. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, will expand on its findings.
	However, there are three particularly important areas mentioned which need attention. The first is the content of broadcast material where there continues to be significant under-representation of minority ethnic individuals, especially on television. From my own viewing, that situation appears to have got slightly better but the figures do not yet indicate it.
	The second area which needs attention is the manner of portrayal where stereotypical and culturally inappropriate representations still persist. Thirdly, employment is an area where, if anything, there has been a decline in the number of people of different ethnic origins employed in the industry.
	I am glad that Channel 4, in its latest briefing on the Communications Bill, has specifically backed this amendment. I hope that we shall have the support of the other terrestrial broadcasters as well as Members of the Committee. But most important, I hope that the Minister and the Government will accept the amendment and the important principle that lies behind the need to table it. I beg to move.

Baroness Prashar: I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. In making this contribution I declare an interest in that I was a non-executive director of Channel 4 for about seven years in the 1990s. As the Committee knows, the Government have declared their vision of developing an equal, inclusive society where everyone is treated with respect and within which there are opportunities for all.
	The amendment seeks to instil that desire into the Bill, allowing an important and influential regulator the basis upon which to act to ensure that those objectives are achieved. It is also designed to ensure that Ofcom's decisions and the regulatory structure comply with the requirements of the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.
	After some considerable thought, I decided to support the amendment. Some would argue that it is unnecessary. In an ideal world one could argue that such a provision is unnecessary. However, as we have heard, progress thus far has been patchy. Therefore, it is essential that such wording should be included in the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, said, for the past six months I have been chairing the review that has been looking at diversity in the context of the Bill. The review, which was established by the Broadcasting Standards Commission, with the support of the ITC, will be published in due course.
	After considering the detail on progress, the review concluded that this amendment is necessary because it will take the burden off the individuals of goodwill and commitment within the organisation, who, of course, will come and go, and require everyone within the new regime to share responsibility for ensuring compliance, especially in those areas already mentioned; namely, content, portrayal, and, in particular, employment. It will also focus the minds of those running such organisations to ensure that we continue to make progress, which, as I said, has been patchy to date. I very much hope that the Government will support the amendment.

Baroness Whitaker: I support the amendment. I declare an interest as the deputy chair of the ITC, which also supports the amendment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, said, it is also supported by Channel 4, as well as the trade union BECTU. Briefly, the United Kingdom is multi-cultural; that is a fact. However, it could become fragmented along cultural lines, or even polarised. That could happen. It has happened in many countries but not yet here in a general way, although there are gaps here and there in social cohesion.
	We need to foster inclusion. Television and radio are uniquely powerful in creating culture and in reflecting society. Failures in catering for all groups have been recorded, not only as the noble Baroness mentioned but also in research carried out jointly by the BBC, the BSC, the ITC, and the Radio Authority. For that reason, Ofcom must have regard to the concerns for the interest of the full range of communities in our society—nations and regions, as the Bill says—and also the other communities that stretch across our geographical divisions.

Lord Dubs: In supporting the amendment, I must begin by declaring an interest as chair of the Broadcasting Standards Commission. As my noble friend Lady Whitaker said, the BSC, together with the ITC and other bodies, has carried out a good deal of research in the area, some of which, I hope, will be published shortly. It is because I believe in the good sense of government Ministers—at least of this Government—that I cannot help feeling that the amendment seeks to put right an obvious omission. It is my charitable view that the failure to include this provision must have been an oversight on the part of the Government.
	It is perfectly clear that the amendment is both sensible and appropriate for this part of the Bill. Channel 4 supports it. Earlier this year, I noticed that ITV published a cultural diversity guide that also embodies at least some elements of what the amendment seeks to achieve. After all, the functions of Ofcom under this clause refer to those with "disabilities",
	"the elderly and . . . those on low incomes",
	people from different parts of the country and the difference between urban and rural dwellers. A whole range of concerns is covered, so it is surprising that cultural diversity and ethnic minority concerns are not mentioned.
	After the tragic events in New York on 11th September, I was asked to convene a meeting at the office of the Broadcasting Standards Commission comprising many broadcasters and leading members of the Muslim community in this country. We had two meetings to discuss such matters and to listen to the concerns of Muslims about the way in which the broadcasting media were covering certain events dealing with their community. They felt that the media were stereotyping their community and from time to time doing so in a pejorative manner. It was a very useful exchange of views which, among other things, convinced me that this amendment is appropriate.
	When dealing with an amendment about public service broadcasting during the first day of Committee, my noble friend Lord McIntosh suggested that such an amendment was not in the right part of the Bill but that it should appear later in the legislation in the section that deals with television and radio. Taking that point to heart, I argue that the amendment is absolutely in the right place. Not only does it put ethnic minority concerns on a par with disability, and so on, but, with the convergence of media, surely we shall find that such matters cover not simply broadcasting but also a range of other electronic media, especially the Internet.
	Indeed, research evidence suggests that some members of the Asian community use the Internet as a source of information more than is the case with other people in this country. They do so because they feel that through the Internet, more than through broadcasting, they can find matters of concern to them and their community. I argue that the amendment is proper; that it was omitted by oversight; that it is fully in keeping with the spirit of the Bill; and that it is in the right part of the Bill in order to be fully effective.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My speech could scarcely be briefer. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, in terms of what she is seeking to achieve by way of this amendment. I apologise to her for the fact that I was not present in the Chamber at the beginning of her introductory remarks. I do not propose to add to any of the comments made by previous speakers, but I have a serious question for the noble Baroness. In terms of the sense of the amendment, does she agree that there ought to be a comma after the word "Kingdom"?

Lord McNally: Following the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, this is obviously a sensible and appropriate amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, said that we had come a long way; that is certainly true. The broadcasting environment in which I grew up probably did not reflect my cultural background. The programmes broadcast on children's television were "Billy Bunter" and "Just William". Indeed, my mother listened to "Mrs Dale's Diary" on the radio. It was very much a white, middle-class, southern England view. We had to wait for John Osborne to change things with his kitchen-sink dramas before we heard northern accents and all about working-class life—

Baroness Buscombe: Has the noble Lord forgotten "The Clitheroe Kid"?

Lord McNally: Indeed, my Lords. It is interesting that the one outpost of regional culture was music hall and light entertainment. I concede that to the noble Baroness. But I remember the BBC radio broadcasters had to change into dinner jackets in order to read the news, never mind the television news readers. We have come a long way since then.
	Although I suspect that it abandoned the idea out of sheer embarrassment, one of the cable television channels recently broadcast a re-run of the 1970s "comedy" series, "Love Thy Neighbour". The basic premise was that of a black man who had moved in next door. It is absolutely excruciating to watch that series today, reflecting as it does a picture of racism, prejudice and stereotyping. Fortunately, however, it does highlight the sheer boorishness of the racist white neighbour, while the black neighbour is now safely ensconced as a character in "Eastenders".
	Programmes have changed profoundly and our current affairs output reflects that. However, evidence is still being produced, not only from the usual suspects, to show that our communications industry tends to centre on London and the area encircled by the M25, and that it is still extremely difficult for ethnic and other minority communities to get into the system. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, who is not with us today, is probably the exception that proves the rule.
	I was worried to learn that the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, is seeking to become a film producer. I should warn him that the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, has advised me that the way to make a small fortune out of film production is to start with a large fortune. However, that subject may be for another debate.
	I hope that this will be the first occasion on which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will leap to his feet and declare that the Government accept the amendment—hook, line and sinker.

The Lord Bishop of Manchester: There is a strong tradition of support from these Benches for those who belong to the different ethnic communities that increasingly make up this nation and add to its rich cultural heritage. It is in that spirit that I wish to add my support to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe.
	I do so also because I am the bishop of a diocese which has within it the largest ethnic communities outside London both in terms of individual size, in the cases of the Jewish and Chinese communities, and in terms of their mix. Over the past few months I have been aware, when meeting people from those different communities, how very vulnerable many of them still feel, in spite of the efforts that have been made in this country to include them far more in all our doings.
	So while I am aware that the Minister may well feel that the points which have properly been raised during our debate are covered by the clause, I hope that he will recognise that it is extremely important to spell out this matter so that there can be no doubt whatsoever as regards our good will and concern for people of the different ethnic communities.

Lord Davies of Oldham: We are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for tabling this amendment. It has sparked a most interesting and constructive debate during which several substantial points were made. As has been so eloquently illustrated, we live in a richly diverse country and our media must reflect that. We believe that we have made provision in the Bill to ensure that it does.
	The Government recognise the importance of the diversity agenda, and Ofcom will want to embrace it fully. However, while we are totally in accord with the sentiments behind the amendment that have been expressed so graphically in the debate, it is our view that the Bill already adequately provides for the needs of all members of the community, and we are not yet convinced that we need to add a specific reference to people of different ethnic origins and communities to the general duties clause.
	Ofcom's general duties are fully inclusive. In carrying out its functions it must,
	"further the interests of the community as a whole".
	Provision already exists in the Bill in Clause 260, the public service remit, to ensure that what we see on television properly reflects the cultural diversity of the United Kingdom. Furthermore, because we believe that the diversity of content is supported and enhanced through equality of opportunity and fairness in recruitment and employment, Clauses 24 and 330 ensure that the broadcasting industry is fully signed up to this agenda.
	In addition to these provisions, the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 will apply to Ofcom. The Act will require Ofcom to consider the specific needs and requirements of people from diverse backgrounds, both in terms of its own internal processes and as Ofcom deals with the external world. Ofcom will also be subject to Northern Ireland equality legislation and a Welsh language scheme.
	Therefore, despite the persuasive arguments that have been advanced in support of the amendment, it is difficult to see what additional positive impact the amendment would have on broadcasting and what, if any, impact it would have on the networks and services provisions in the Bill. My concern is that it could, in effect, open the way for a degree of potentially rather heavy-handed intervention in the form of box ticking and quota setting, which we do not need.
	I share the view of noble Lords that we need to ensure that broadcasting in this country embraces diversity. The case for that has been made splendidly this afternoon. However, I believe that the Bill as constructed already achieves this because we have provided for precisely those objectives. Having said that, however, I have listened carefully to the debate and I shall consider the amendment further in the light of the comments that have been made.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I thank the Minister for his reply. He ended on a positive note so I am not quite as depressed by his answer as I might otherwise have been. I wish to thank all those Members of the Committee who have joined in the debate. I was most heartened to listen to what noble Lords had to say in support of the amendment. Perhaps I should apologise for not having declared earlier my now somewhat elderly interest, in that I am a former chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Commission.
	I shall swiftly reaffirm my own view, having worked for so long in the field of equal opportunities. It is necessary to spell out these areas. It was necessary to do so again and again on women's issues, even though women comprise 50 per cent of the population. It is just as necessary now in regard to race issues, and to do so until the time comes when the message is completely absorbed. Where better than to spell it out as proposed on the face of the Bill?
	For the moment I shall withdraw the amendment. I shall read carefully what all noble Lords have had to say and wait to see what may emerge from our discussions.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 21:
	Page 4, line 9, at end insert—
	"( ) the need to promote good practice in relation to the security of electronic communications networks;"

Lord Dixon-Smith: I rise once again to move an amendment tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Northesk. This amendment should come as no surprise either to Members of the Committee or to the Government. No doubt noble Lords will recall the promotion last year of the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Bill of my noble friend. Indeed, the Government and the Minister may even have thought to dig out and review the Second Reading debate for that Bill in preparation for today's discussions. It is sufficient to say that those proceedings, in their entirety and based on the contributions of all noble Lords who spoke, encapsulate the reason why my noble friend believes this amendment to be so important. But it is useful to update the background and factual information that underpins the amendment. In that way the Committee will gain a feel for the context in which it is intended to operate.
	Inevitably, computer crime is a fairly recent phenomenon. As the technological revolution develops, so we become more and more aware of the myriad ways in which IT can be used for criminal or anti-social ends. For us, as legislators, it is a relentless process of catch-up, although there are senses in which we have not even begun to do so as yet. For illustrative purposes, it is worth considering a single subset of this problem, although I am bound to caution the Committee that this does not make any other aspect of IT security any less important.
	A recent survey carried out for the National Hi-Tech Crime Unit by NOP of more than 100 firms highlighted more than 3,000 separate incidents of sabotage of data, virus attack and financial fraud. Hacking and denial of service attacks accounted for one in five of these episodes. As Detective Chief Superintendent Len Hynds, the head of the National Hi-Tech Crime Unit, is on record as saying,
	"With 87 per cent of respondents reporting that they had suffered some kind of hi-tech attack it is not so much 'will you become a victim?' but rather 'when will you know that you are a victim?'".
	We are all aware of computer viruses and their huge potential for damage, but for most of us they are a threat that is only dimly perceived and even more dimly understood. At least in part this is a result of that sense of diffidence towards IT to which my noble friend alluded last week.
	But there are some digestible facts. Industry experts estimate that the number of viruses and their variants currently in circulation is 62,000. According to a DTI survey in 2002, the rise in access attacks has gone from 4 per cent to 14 per cent in less than a year. Industry estimates that the average cost for a security breach is £30,000, with several companies reporting incidents which cost more than £500,000.
	Typically, the fear of reporting IT crime to the police—notwithstanding the suspicion that many have that the law as it stands is ill-equipped to deal with the problem—stems from the belief that, in so doing, security shortcomings will be publicised and exposed. Not only that, but consumer and commercial confidence in their net presence may be undermined. Certainly reporting, even in confidence via the UNIRAS system, has yet to be taken up widely, although the National Hi-Tech Crime Unit seems to be making some progress with its confidential hot-line.
	One or two companies have been willing to place on record reports of attacks on their networks, notably the Internet service provider, Tiscali. Its UK arm was severely impacted on 18th March this year—I apologise for my noble friend's "techie" approach to this issue but he is the expert and I defer to him—after a massive denial of service assault that downed the ISP's portal, denying customers net access and e-mail services. Nominet, too, has suffered, particularly at the hands of "spammers", and was forced to suspend the "WHOIS" service.
	It is not only the private sector and individuals who are at risk; the public sector is equally exposed. The Committee will remember that, 18 months ago, the original Code Red virus wormed its way through the Internet, carrying a payload intended to cause a denial of service attack on the White House web server. The UK has not escaped its share of attacks from hackers. The No. 10 Downing Street website, on 23rd March this year, was briefly rendered inaccessible after a co-ordinated denial of service attack protesting the Prime Minister's role in the Iraq conflict. Separately, the Carder's group defaced more than 3,000 websites over a weekend early in March of this year.
	We—and the Government should be included in the use of that pronoun—should be under no illusions: the problem is immense. It is getting worse all the time rather than better. I have skimmed the surface of only one of its aspects. It is seductive to imagine that, serious as all of this may be, it is outside the scope of the Bill. What conceivable utility is there in a primary economic regulator having any measure of responsibility over issues more correctly dealt with elsewhere?
	The first point to be made is that, on the Government's own admission, Ofcom is not intended to be exclusively an economic regulator. For the avoidance of doubt, Dr Kim Howells, the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, said,
	"Ofcom is not purely, or even primarily, an economic regulator".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 10/12/02; col. 76.]
	Secondly, a point already made by my noble friend in the context of other amendments, the economic and commercial vitality and success of IT are inextricably linked with the levels of trust and confidence that consumers have in it. It is possible to over-emphasise the importance of this but, none the less, in so far as Ofcom is an economic regulator and thereby has a vested interest in the health and vitality of the sector, issues of business trust and confidence can be seen as integral to its work.
	Thirdly, to a very major extent we have already had a template of the Government's own construction of the way in which co-operative effort can impact beneficially within the sector. It is only last year that the Government introduced the Mobile Telephone (Re-programming) Bill which Parliament very quickly turned round and enacted into law. We all agreed that its purpose was to respond to a specific and identifiable problem within the communications sector. We all agree that its drafting was informed by inputs from telecoms companies, from appropriate regulators and from the Government. I do not know how it has impacted on the scale of the problem of mobile phone theft—perhaps the Minister will help me on that in his response—but it is reasonable to suppose that it will have had an effect and eased the problem somewhat. Certainly we do not hear so much about mobile phone theft as we did 12 months ago.
	The point at issue here is to ask ourselves how much better and quicker would we all have been able to respond to the problem of mobile phone theft had the relevant regulator been more proactively involved at the coal face, as it were, on a day-to-day basis. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve.
	The Committee may feel that this is a rehash of Amendment No. 14 moved by my noble friend Lady Wilcox last week. It is not. That had some specific targets—copyright abuse, threats to children on the net and so on—but this amendment does not have that degree of specificity. It recognises that the role of Ofcom here is not that of creating regulation but of acting as a champion for security issues as they relate to ICT. If the objective of legislating for technological convergence is to be realised coherently, it is imperative that Ofcom should be placed in this position.
	As with other technology-based amendments, the Minister will no doubt argue—with some justification, it has to be said—that the body of IT security-related issues should be left to be dealt with under the terms of the forthcoming European directives. That has an element of substance, but the rub, as my noble friend would argue, is that, as with Amendment No. 16, all the proposition does is anticipate without in any way pre-empting the terms of those directives.
	We should not be deluded into ignoring a crucial aspect of the commercial and economic health and vitality of the new technology sector which, after all, should lie at the heart of Ofcom's work, simply because it may be more convenient, or possibly tidier, to defer the matter by dealing with it via the European route. It is important that Ofcom should have its finger very firmly on the pulse of technological development and the way in which it may generate problems and difficulties in the future.
	If we are sincerely to believe that the UK can take its place in the forefront of the new technology in the years leading up to the delivery of the Government's various targets, we cannot afford to tie Ofcom's hands here. It is crucial that the Office of Communications has a specific responsibility to promote good practice in relation to security of the entire electronic communications network. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I wonder if it would help the Committee if I said that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has answered his own amendment. The answer is indeed that Clause 4 places Ofcom under certain further duties in order to fulfil certain Community obligations under the framework directive. That includes, among those obligations, a duty to promote the interests of the citizens of the European Union by, among other things, ensuring that the integrity and security of public communications networks are maintained. There is nothing in the amendment that is not done already in the Bill.

Lord Northbrook: I support Amendment No. 21 which says that Ofcom must have regard in particular, where relevant, to the need to promote good practice in relation to the security of electronic communications networks.
	I am aware of the work being carried out by the European Union with its comprehensive strategy on network security, cybercrime and the forthcoming data protection directive on electronic communications. But, as with Amendment No. 16, I am worried about the speed of progress. Can I ask the Minister—

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry to interrupt, but there is nothing that can be done more quickly by this amendment than is already being done in the Bill.

Lord Northbrook: With great respect to the Minister, I wonder if I could carry on with some points.
	What progress has been made in the proposals made in the Council resolution of 28th January 2002 and on the more recent Commission proposal for a Council framework decision on attacks against information systems? In particular, is the cybersecurity taskforce, promised by mid-2003, running to timetable? This force is very important, since it is promised that it will become a centre of competence on security questions—that is, to develop with member states a concept for a European computer attack alert system and to improve cross-border co-operation.
	In summary, I believe, as with Amendment No. 16, that this matter should be on the face of the Bill as the whole European process, however well intentioned, could take many years to implement.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This Bill transposes the framework directive—that is what it does. The third Community requirement specified by Clause 4 is to promote the interests of citizens of the European Union. Clause 4(2) ensures that the Community requirements are to be read in accordance with article 8 of the framework directive. The directive cites the need to ensure that the integrity and security of public communications networks are maintained as one aspect of the objective of promoting the interests of citizens of the Union. Therefore, although the words do not appear on the face of the Bill, the obligation applies to Ofcom just as if they did. This amendment is not necessary.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. Whether my noble friend is as satisfied with it as I am at the present time remains to be seen, but I shall draw it to my noble friend's attention. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 22:
	Page 4, line 12, at end insert—
	"( ) the impact of developments in relevant markets upon creators and performers"

Baroness Buscombe: Before I speak to Amendment No. 22, I want to spend a couple of minutes in referring to a speech made by the Culture Secretary, Tessa Jowell, to the Westminster Media Forum last Wednesday 30th April. It is only right that Members of the Committee should know what the Secretary of State said in relation to this Bill, as it is entirely relevant.
	The speech was about the Communications Bill. I have the text, in which the Secretary of State said:
	"Many provisions don't face any real prospect of major amendment".
	Indeed, she went on to say of the Bill that,
	"most of it is now uncontentious".
	It is also only right that Members of the Committee should know that, moving away from the specific words of the speech, the Secretary of State said that a consensus had been reached on the Bill. I questioned the Secretary of State as to whether we were wasting our time if it is the Government's opinion and decision that whatever happens in this House, we will not be listened to. It is important for Ministers to be aware of what was said in last Wednesday's speech. The Secretary of State responded to me by saying that she felt that a consensus had, in large part, been reached, and that what she had said had a lot to do with the difference between our two Houses.
	This is tremendously important, particularly given some of the interventions from noble Lords in the Bill's first day in Committee, when a real concern was raised as to whether the Minister would listen to what we had to say, given that pre-legislative scrutiny had taken place. I made it clear that noble Lords on this side of the House—and I believe I speak for all noble Lords—are not content to substitute pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill for proper scrutiny in this House.
	On Amendment No. 22, amid our concern with communications network and service providers, I am anxious that we appreciate the impact of regulatory change on our creative industries and on the music industry in particular. The Bill rightly focuses on the importance of independent producers in other areas, but I feel that we are in danger of overlooking an industry whose fortunes are linked inextricably with those of the communications industry more broadly.
	The success of individuals and companies in the music industry is closely dependent on the opportunities for the creation of music for and broadcasting of music by national and regional radio and television services in the United Kingdom. Reform of the regulatory environment for communications directly impacts on the music industry. We recognise that Ofcom is taking on duties of enormous breadth and complexity, and that it will be required to balance a huge range of different interests. We do not seek to add to those duties unnecessarily. I genuinely feel, however, that the inclusion of an additional general duty to secure the best conditions for the creation and supply of new and quality creative content to television and radio services would be a welcome addition to the Bill. The British music industry is a significant economic and cultural asset, and if it is in our power to secure optimal conditions for its development, I feel we should do so. I beg to move.

Viscount Falkland: In supporting the amendment, I remind Members of the Committee that a similar amendment, put before the House of Commons, was judged to be over-specific. The argument was that accepting the amendment would compromise the flexibility of Ofcom on the grounds that it would place in balance the interests of creators in relation to other interests—the general public interest in particular. One could argue, and I would argue on this occasion, that that is not the purpose or thrust of this amendment. Rather, the amendment would provide an assurance that the regulatory body, Ofcom, took into account the interests of the creators, but not that those interests would be in any way pre-eminent.
	I imagine the Minister will say that it is the purpose of the content board to ensure that those creative interests are considered. May one suggest that there should be a statutory duty for the regulator to take account of those important forces in broadcasting who create the content that we all, by and large, enjoy? That would be preferable to referring the responsibility to a sub-board entirely composed of non-creative people or, to use the word in the amendment, without creators on it.
	The House will explore the issue of the content board later in the progress of the Committee. It may be appropriate to suggest that it would be pertinent for Ofcom to consider the establishment of a creator's panel, the chair of which would sit on the content board for relevant purposes. I am sure that positive action in the area to which the amendment indicates that the Government may go would provide a great deal of assurance to the music-creating industry, which the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, mentioned. That industry's concerns about regulation and market developments would be properly considered.
	In the meantime, we support the amendment, as it clearly attempts to enshrine the interests of creators in the legislation.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I make a brief contribution as the footnote of a scholiast to what my noble friend Lady Buscombe said at the beginning of her speech.
	My experience of audiences addressed by Ministers is that they much enjoy their own textual analysis of what is said. I remember, when I was a Minister, someone who is now a noble Lord in this House saying that he always enjoyed after-dinner speeches by Ministers. He sought to detect the bits written in the department before the Minister set out and those bits that the Minister added during the drive to the dinner to add a personal touch. It is sometimes perfectly clear that the Minister has not actually read the speech at all before delivering it. I have been in the audience when that has happened. One can see him distancing himself from the text as he utters it.
	I do not doubt for a moment that the Secretary of State had read whichever speech it was that she read out to the Westminster Media Forum, but it is just possible that she had not read it quite as carefully in advance of delivering it as she would have liked. In the course of the speech, as my noble friend Lady Buscombe said, she chose to distance herself from and to amend the speech orally. She may have realised that the speech had some downside in terms of its potential consequences. If the potential consequence was to give the impression that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport had given up on the scrutiny of your Lordships' House and was taking your Lordships' House for granted, I cannot help feeling that the Secretary of State might have been making a mistake.

Baroness Blackstone: Let me straightaway deal with the question of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State's speech. I was not there, so I did not hear what she said, but I can give all Members of the Committee who have raised the question the assurance that my right honourable friend is absolutely clear about the importance of scrutiny in this House.
	My right honourable friend is also fully aware that there are some contentious issues. I believe that she was saying that many of the provisions in the Bill are the subject of general agreement. After all, the Bill has around 450 clauses. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, would accept that much of what is in the Bill is a matter of agreement throughout the House. That does not mean to say that there should not be very careful scrutiny—

Lord McNally: I am listening to the Minister, but this reminds me of a problem that came up on day one. When Ministers go to conferences, where there are various vested interests, they get carried away by the event and start giving assurances. They tell people not to worry because those troublesome meddlesome Peers are not going to do anything to the Bill. "Rest at night, lads", the Minister says, "because we will deliver the Bill".
	The problem is that noble Lords read. They read these speeches and get mad about them. I urge the Minister to tell them down the corridor, in another place, that a little deference in this case could go a long way. I refer not only to Tessa Jowell but also to Mr Kim Howells. They give the impression that we are just a rubber stamp. They are going to be wrong.

Baroness Blackstone: I have had numerous conversations with both Mr Kim Howells and with Tessa Jowell. Neither of them has ever given me the impression that they think this House is just a rubber-stamping body. I do not know where the noble Lord, Lord McNally, gets that from. I am also sure that Tessa Jowell would not have referred in her speech only to "lads"; she would have talked about "lasses" as well.
	I give this Chamber an absolute assurance that neither I nor my ministerial friends on the Front Bench, nor the Secretary of State nor the Parliamentary Under-Secretary responsible for broadcasting believes the House of Lords to be somehow irrelevant. I might remind Members of the Committee that my noble friend Lord Davies has just conceded that the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, was something that we should take back and consider. There will be other examples where we shall want to do that.
	I turn to the amendment we are discussing. The creative industries in this country, including the music industry, are essential to deliver the quality that we want in our broadcasting services. Their success contributes enormously to our economic well being. Developments in electronic communication services bring with them a whole range of extra scope for creativity. Important as that is, however, I do not believe that it is appropriate to single out that group as one of the matters to which Ofcom must have regard when undertaking its duties. We have emphasised from the outset of the legislative process, both in the White Paper and in the Bill, that it is the public interest that really counts in the regulation of communication services.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, mentioned the content board. As we will talk later about the content board, I think that it would be wrong for me to engage now in what the board will or will not do except to say that the content board is part of Ofcom and any panels that it might set up will be a matter for Ofcom. As I said, I do not think that that should be put on the face of the Bill.
	Where the work of creative performers has an impact on the public, we have focused on ensuring that Ofcom has the necessary responsibilities, notably in relation to the provision of high-quality and diverse services in the public service broadcasting remit and in the provisions for original production. In that way, we are creating real opportunities for creativity to flourish. I attach a great deal of importance to that.
	There is already a fairly long list of matters to which Ofcom is to have regard and it is difficult to see what impact Amendment No. 22 would have on any particular Ofcom decision. It is to the public interest that Ofcom should look, and that is what the Bill provides for. I hope that in the light of what I have said the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her response. If I may, I should like to respond briefly in relation to my comments on the Secretary of State. I thank my noble friend Lord Brooke for his intervention. It was actually the Secretary of State's personal touch that was so damaging. The speech written by the civil servants was damaging enough, but I think that the Secretary of State made matters worse. It is a lesson for all of us.
	I also thank the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for his interest in the matter. There were, of course, vested interests at the forum. Although the issue is particularly important to them, they were equally concerned that all the lobbying which they are continuing to undertake with all of us—and quite rightly so, as this is an important Bill—is not a waste of their time. I think that I was on the right side of the debate as it was I who received the applause.
	I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for his support for Amendment No. 22. He used the word "reassurance", which as much as anything else is what the music industry is looking for. It is tremendously important to show support for the music industry particularly now when it feels that it is being completely hammered by the Government in the Licensing Bill. We are speaking about an important part of the industry. Our music creators not only contribute significantly to our cultural life but are a commercial asset. I therefore think it right to urge the Government to urge Ofcom to take on board the interests of UK creators and performers and the impact on them of developments in relevant markets. For now, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]

Baroness Wilcox: moved Amendment No. 24:
	Page 4, line 14, after "consumers" insert ", including disabled, elderly and low income consumers,"

Baroness Wilcox: In moving Amendment No. 24 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 41, 62 and 81. Amendment No. 24 makes it clear on the face of the Bill that when Ofcom carries out its duty to further the interest of consumers, "consumers" refers not only to those who have the physical and financial capacity to use the latest technological developments but also to disadvantaged consumers such as those with disabilities, the frail and elderly and those on very low incomes. We welcome Clause 3(3)(i) which states that Ofcom must have regard to,
	"the needs of persons with disabilities, of the elderly and of those on low incomes",
	but feel that this is an issue of such importance that it requires strengthening on the face of the Bill.
	Different consumers will have different interests that need to be furthered and it is important that Ofcom takes that on board. Amendment No. 62 ensures that Ofcom bears in mind the differing experience of disadvantaged consumers when it conducts its consumer research. Amendment No. 81 makes the suggestion that when Ofcom publishes advice for consumers, it should be in a format that is accessible to those with disabilities.
	Those who are most in need of having their interests protected by Ofcom are the disadvantaged consumers who are disabled, elderly or perhaps on a very low income. Those groups include the most vulnerable in society who must rely on technology more than others for safety, entertainment and to stay in contact with family and friends. Advances in technology open up real possibilities for an increase in the quality of life of those people, who because of disability, age or income are unable to be fully active in other areas of society.
	Amendment No. 41 seeks to promote media literacy among disadvantaged consumers. Such literacy, by encouraging a deeper understanding of the technology involved by those who have so much to gain from it, would be of real value to those consumers and an excellent addition to the Bill. These groups also include those with special needs who require designs that are easy to use and understand. For, in an unfortunate paradox, those who have most to benefit from technological advances are those who are prevented from using them due, for example, to small letters and numbers that cannot be read, buttons that are hard to push and complicated systems that are difficult to understand.
	Without referring at an early stage of the Bill to the different types of consumer need that Ofcom should consider, Ofcom will not have the legislative back-up to go the extra mile to ensure that the interests of all consumers are furthered. It seems to me that even without a regulator in sight, companies will be falling over themselves to meet the needs of the affluent, the technologically minded and the able-bodied proportion of the population. Where a regulator can be of real use is in ensuring that companies do not ignore the disadvantaged. I beg to move.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I declare an interest. I appear on the letterhead of PHAB—Physically Handicapped and Able Bodied—but I do not do so in any executive capacity. Nor do I think that that particular disability is one that is particularly affected by Amendment No. 24. However, I recall from being a Member of another place for the best part of a quarter of a century the series of occasions when Members of Parliament were subjected to very considerable lobbying by correspondents on issues relating to the disabled and their reaction to the media. No one who has not experienced that should be in any doubt that it is an issue that resonates within those who have such disabilities. I cannot help feeling that it is desirable that it should be on the face of the Bill.

Baroness Wilkins: I speak to Amendment No 79, which is grouped with Amendments Nos. 24, 41, 62 and 81, which I support. The purpose of Amendment No. 79 is to ensure that the statutory representation of disabled and older people is continued in the new regulatory framework laid out in the Bill, enabling the consumer panel to give informed advice on all issues affecting disabled and older people to Ofcom and the service providers. Without that, the Bill will signify a severely retrograde step in meeting disabled and older people's needs and one which can only get worse over time.
	Currently, there is a statutory advisory committee in telecommunications, called DIEL, which provides the regulator with invaluable advice on the interests and access requirements of disabled and older consumers. The DIEL committee has 11 members, which enables it to reflect the wide range of impairments among disabled people alongside the interests of older people.
	The Communications Bill makes no comparable provision. It removes both the statutory representation and the comprehensive breadth of advice. Instead it offers possibly one person appointed to the consumer panel to represent disabled and older people. Even if the Minister could give the Committee the assurance that one person with disability expertise would definitely be appointed to the panel, that person could not possibly represent the needs of all disabled people, such is our diversity. This proposal would turn back the clock about 30 years to the time when disabled people were grateful for any representation.
	The current advisory committee, DIEL, has ensured that the telecommunications industry has avoided many pitfalls in relation to disabled and older people during its existence. In a letter to its chair, Bob Twitchin, the national manager of BT's Age and Disability Action section stated:
	"I am most keen to see an advisory committee like DIEL in the new OFCOM structure with the specific remit of looking after the interests of older and disabled people. Consulting with a group like DIEL can be of more benefit than consulting with organisations representing people with a specific impairment as the committee is able to provide a balanced view without over emphasis on one disability over another".
	She added:
	"I know that BT Payphones has also found the relationship highly valuable over the years and it would be a retrograde step for disabled customers if an advisory committee like DIEL were not to continue in the new Ofcom structure".
	There is a danger, which will be voiced many times during this Committee stage, that disabled people will be increasingly excluded in the information society unless their needs are fully protected by measures in the Bill. It is hard to see how Ofcom will be able to receive informed advice in this crucial area unless an advisory committee akin to DIEL is established under the auspices of the consumer panel.
	Similarly telecom companies will be required to consult the panel on improving services for disabled people. How is the panel to give informed advice without the sort of depth and breadth of expertise and the legitimacy that DIEL could marshal? As the Disability Rights Commission has made clear in its briefing on the Bill, equal access to communications services for disabled people is a matter of civil rights not social policy and an essential prerequisite of equal citizenship. If we are to achieve full social inclusion of disabled people, the building blocks have to be put in place in all aspects of society's structure. The ways in which we receive information and the ways in which we communicate are obviously basic to our functioning in society.
	The Bill will lay down the framework for years to come so it is imperative that the needs of disabled and older people are fully protected on the face of the Bill. Providing for their statutory representation through an advisory committee which is composed of a majority of disabled people is one of the essential building blocks for ensuring that disabled people will not be left behind and shut out of the information society.

Lord Addington: My name is added to Amendment No. 79 in the group of amendments that we are discussing. I wish to speak in support of that amendment and, indeed, the entire group. If I did not recognise all the words that the noble Baroness used, I definitely recognised the tune. If we carry on at this rate we shall be able to come up with something we can all hum happily together.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, has just said, Amendment No. 79 is concerned with retaining what we have. I refer to a situation where one person is bombarded by dozens of different people saying that they do not understand the position. As a disability spokesman I know exactly what will happen to such a person as it happens to me. Dozens of people say to me, "You do not understand my specific needs". One has to say, "Wait a minute; there are other people involved. I need to get a balance. I need to find out what is going on". It is incredibly difficult to get such a balanced view. One needs to consider many views. One needs a consensus view. I hope that Members of the Committee will adopt such a course throughout the Committee stage. We need to represent the views of all groups involved in the matter. I commend Amendment No. 79 in particular but also the entire group we are discussing.

Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I commend Amendment No. 79 to which the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, are added. I support very much all that they said, in particular what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said about one person not being beleaguered. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, mentioned that communications service providers benefit greatly from the practical advice that they get from committees such as the one we are discussing. That is ably demonstrated by DIEL. It is vital that such provision should continue.

Lord Ashley of Stoke: There is nothing worse than arguments being repeated in this Chamber ad nauseum. Therefore, I propose to speak briefly. I endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, said about Amendment No. 79. The name that she mentioned, DIEL, is an odd one. I am not particularly keen on that name. It is to be abolished. The letters "DI" stood for disability and "EL" for elderly. However, the body has an admirable function. It has campaigned actively, aggressively and persuasively for disabled and elderly people. It has done a good job. That provision will be lost under the Bill. There is no similar provision. It is entirely wrong that the Government should omit that provision. This is a very simple amendment. I am sure that my noble friend will consider it sympathetically. As I say, it is a very simple and modest amendment but I hope that the Government will give a categoric assurance that they will take it away and consider it.
	It is of paramount importance that the committee we are discussing should include a majority of disabled or elderly people. There is absolutely no point in having people with no experience of the matters they are to discuss. If the disabled and elderly are not represented on the committee they will be excluded. On the question of exclusion I commend the speeches that have been made on other amendments in the group we are discussing. I warmly accept the principles behind the amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, mentioned numbers that are too small to be read easily by elderly or disabled people who have sight impairment. It is not just a matter of not being able to press buttons or to read tiny text. What that really means is that they are completely excluded from television as a method of communication. No thought has gone into that matter. If accepted, these amendments would go a long way to including disabled and elderly people in the matter we are discussing. It is a simple but profoundly important point.

Lord Carter: Amendment No. 25, which stands in my name, tackles this problem in a different way. I shall make my main argument when speaking to that amendment. However, I want to pick up one point that the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, made. I believe that she referred to Clause 3(3)(i). However, I believe that Clause 330 refers to the employment of disabled persons. It does not refer to access for disabled persons. If I read it correctly, Clause 330 deals only with the employment of disabled persons. We shall certainly want to discuss that matter when we reach that clause.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I wish to speak briefly in support of what the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said. I remind the Committee that disabled people comprise a very diverse group but that another group must be considered within that; namely, those who have a temporary disability. Many hospital patients and people who are recovering from episodes are severely disabled. They also need to be considered. I do not think that it is possible for one representative with a disability remit adequately to represent the breadth of people who may be affected by the provisions in the Bill. Therefore, I support the wording of and the sentiments behind the amendments.

The Lord Bishop of Manchester: It would be strange if there were no support from these Benches for the amendments that we are discussing. The Committee will be well aware that as bishops and, indeed, clergy we come constantly into pastoral contact with those who are elderly, disabled and financially disadvantaged.
	Many of the interventions that have been made have echoed points that would happily have been made from these Benches and I shall not repeat them. I gladly give my support to the amendments but not simply for professional reasons, as clergy from my own diocese would certainly endorse. During many years of my upbringing, my mother was confined to a wheelchair. I know very well the issues about access with which the amendments seek to deal, so I support them.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not at all surprised that there has been unanimity of support for the amendments around the Committee, not only for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, on the efficiency of the lobbying, but because of the genuine feeling in favour of the issues raised. We are all united in our desire to see improved access to communications services for people with disabilities. We are anxious to see that the digital divide, as it is called, does not exclude disabled or elderly people, or people on low incomes.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, is right: we are concerned that there is a risk that the problem could get worse as existing and future services are delivered by electronic means rather than more conventional ones. That cannot be allowed to happen. We cannot be denied a fully inclusive society simply because of technological advances.
	What is the government response to the issues? Let me come back to the general duties of Ofcom, which have been a common theme of our consideration of the Bill for a day and a half of Committee time now, as is quite right. Those general duties are the key. We have to consider the amendments against the requirement in Clause 3(3)(i) that, where relevant in carrying out its functions, Ofcom must have regard to the needs of persons with disabilities, the elderly and those on low incomes.
	We must also consider the amendments in the light of the role that the consumer panel will play. A number of speakers have dealt with that subject. Formally, people with disabilities, the elderly and those on low incomes are named constituents of the panel. It is true that the formal requirement is for only one person on the panel to represent those interests, but I hope that I can convince the Committee that the actual commitment goes a good deal further. The panel has to provide Ofcom with informed advice about their interests, and Ofcom will have to have regard to their interests in carrying out all its functions.
	We have looked at whether the amendments will add anything real and tangible to what Ofcom will do. As well as the fully inclusive general duties to which I referred, the specific "have regard to" and the remit of the consumer panel have included specific provisions where most needed to ensure that everyone has access.
	Let us consider the universal service provisions set out in the universal service order. By virtue of the provisions in Clause 3(3)(i), Ofcom will have to take into account the needs of people with disabilities, the elderly and those with low incomes. The current draft, which is out for consultation, aims to safeguard the interests of disabled end-users and to ensure access to, and affordability of, publicly available telephone services equivalent to those available to other end-users. It requires Ofcom to take specific measures to ensure availability of directory inquiry services, text relay services, priority fault repair services, specially adapted public call boxes, and the provision of contracts and bills in suitably adapted formats.
	It is very important to have access to broadcasting for people with sensory impairments. That is why the Bill requires Ofcom to draw up, publish and ensure compliance with a code giving guidance on the extent to which television services should promote understanding and enjoyment by deaf and visually impaired people. The Bill also sets targets for the proportion of programmes to be subtitled, audio-described, and presented in or translated into sign language. Clearly, later amendments are relevant to that. In drawing up and regulating under the code, Ofcom would have to consider the specific needs of deaf and visually impaired people.
	I turn to the amendments. Amendment No. 24, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, seeks to ensure that people with disabilities, elderly people and those on low incomes are treated as consumers for the purposes of Clause 3(4). However, the definition of "consumer" is set out in Clause 398(5). People, including people with disabilities, elderly people and people with low incomes who meet the very inclusive criteria set out there are "consumers" and will benefit from Ofcom's duty to consumers. When people do not meet the criteria, they will not be consumers, so adding the definition to Clause 3(4), as the amendment proposes, would not make them consumers. Therefore, it would make no difference to the Bill.
	Amendment No. 41 has to be seen in the same way. We have to weigh it against the general provision in Clause 3. The amendment seeks to prescribe more specifically to whom Ofcom should direct its attention when exercising its duty in relation to media literacy. Ofcom will exercise that duty in the interests of the public as a whole. The general provision in Clause 3(3)(i) ensures that Ofcom will take into account the needs of persons with disabilities, the elderly and those on low incomes.
	I referred earlier to the work of the consumer panel in representing people with disabilities, the elderly and people with low incomes. We are sympathetic to the intention of Amendment No. 62 but, because of Clause 3(3)(i), it would result in duplication of work carried out by the consumer panel. We are creating the consumer panel specifically to give Ofcom informed advice about the range of consumer interests in respect of provision of electronic communications networks and services. We have expressly provided in Clause 16(4) that disadvantaged persons, persons with low incomes and persons with disabilities are among the groups on which the panel must be able to advise.
	The panel will have the power to carry out research, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. Ofcom must give reasons when it chooses to ignore the panel's advice. We do not want to undermine the important and independent work of the panel, and we do not want to duplicate the effort. Of course, Ofcom may want to carry out or commission research itself into the particular needs of the groups. Under Clause 13, it is not prevented from doing so.
	Amendment No. 79 was spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, and a number of other Members of the Committee. Let me make it clear that the consumer panel must have members who have been appointed specifically to ensure that the panel is able to provide advice on the interests of, among others, persons with disabilities or the elderly.
	I am not suggesting, nor are the Government, that one person on the consumer panel would be able to provide Ofcom with the advice on disability and the elderly. I say that particularly to the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilkins and Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Consultation by Ofcom is going on at the moment on the general conditions, which includes a discussion of all the issues. However, the point is that the responsibility on Ofcom is to ensure that the panel as a whole—not only one person—is able to give informed advice about the interests of persons with disabilities and of the elderly.
	I listened to what was said about DIEL. It is certainly true, literally, that DIEL is being abolished. However, DIEL was giving advice to Oftel only, and only on telecommunications matters. The panel has the power to carry out research—it will do so—and set up such committees as it thinks right to ensure that it can do that. Ofcom has an obligation to ensure that it has the resources that it needs to do its job.
	People with disabilities are named constituents of the panel. Their interest will form an important part of the panel's work. The panel cannot choose to ignore them in the face of competing pressures; it has a statutory duty to have regard to the interests of people with disabilities in carrying out all of its functions—these are listed in paragraphs (a) to (k) of Clause 15(3)—and to be able to give Ofcom informed advice on matters that impact on them.
	We believe that disabled people, the elderly and those on low incomes will be better served by a consumer panel that can make its own choices about the best way to address their needs. There are plenty of options open to such a panel. It could set up working groups on particular topics. I have been very impressed by what has been said about the diversity of the needs of different groups of people with disabilities. That is why it would be inappropriate to force a framework on Ofcom and on the panel at this time. How it is done is a matter for Ofcom and the panel—rather than such a provision being on the face of the Bill. The working groups could be on particular topics rather than on marginalising the disabled viewpoint. However such an approach is organised, it is not essential for us to consider it now. The panel will have to make sure that it meets its objectives of providing Ofcom with informed advice and having regard to the interests of disabled people and the elderly in carrying out all of its functions. I do not think it would be right to constrain the independence of the panel by placing a requirement on it now. All of what is asked for in the amendments, particularly in Amendment No. 79, can and should be done by Ofcom and the panel.
	The last of the amendments, Amendment No. 81, seeks to ensure, by including such a requirement on the face of the Bill, that in publishing information or advice in accordance with Clause 23 Ofcom must have,
	"regard to the need to make the information or advice accessible to persons with disabilities".
	Of course that is right; and that is exactly what is provided for in Clause 3(3)(i).
	The fact that we believe that our intentions are so close to the views expressed today, and the fact that I have taken so much time to reply—for which in a sense I apologise—is, I hope, evidence that we do agree with and understand the needs that have been expressed in this debate. To employ a phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I would rather use an example from a song by the electric string band. I shall not sing it in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, but it said: "You know all the words and you sing all the notes, but you never quite learnt the song they sang". I hope that we are singing the same song.

Baroness Wilcox: I thank the Minister for taking the time to respond to the amendments—the importance of whichhe recognised. I thank my noble friend Lord Brooke for his support. I am delighted to know that his name still appears on the letterhead of PHAB. In speaking to her own amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, also supported the other amendments in the group. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, indicated that he did not recognise all the words but recognised the tune. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, and the noble Lords, Lord Ashley of Stoke and Lord Carter, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for their support.
	I am disappointed. I was quite encouraged when the Minister began his response, but ended up feeling again that an aspiration rather than a fact is being expressed. The experience of disadvantaged consumers is that, unless they are mentioned early on the face of a Bill, they have an uphill fight all the way. When I was chairman of the National Consumer Council—set up by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, 28 years ago, continued by the Conservative government, and continued to this day by the Labour Government—its mandate was to be the voice of the consumer, with a special brief for the disadvantaged consumer. That made an enormous difference to the way in which we approached our work. Every time we examined an issue, we did so for the able-bodied consumer and for all of those who did not have a big enough voice; but because that requirement was on the face of our mandate, every time we examined matters we did so in relation to the disadvantaged.
	I shall not press the amendments, particularly Amendment No. 24, at this stage. However, I ask the Minister to note the support expressed for them—not by people who do not understand how to read a Bill: they can read "must have regard to" and they can hear the wonderful aspirations expressed in the Minister's comments. But these are aspirations. My experience teaches me that that is not good enough. I ask the Minister to reconsider this matter. I know that we shall discuss other amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and others who can speak personally of issues, even within their own families, who have great expertise and who always speak for the disadvantaged. But if I have any expertise to bring to bear here, it is based on the fact that for 10 years I spoke for the consumer, particularly the disadvantaged consumer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Carter: moved Amendment No. 25:
	Page 4, line 15, after "choice," insert "accessibility and usability of services,"

Lord Carter: The amendment seeks to insert "accessibility and usability of services" into the general duties of Ofcom. The amendment is grouped separately. Although it seems to cover the ground that we have covered in relation to the previous group—so we shall not have a long debate on it—it approaches the matter in a different way. It would be helpful to the Government were they able to accept it.
	Under the heading "General duties of OFCOM", Clause 3(4) states:
	"In performing their duty under this section of furthering the interests of consumers, OFCOM must have regard, in particular, to the interests of those consumers in respect of choice, price, quality of service and value for money".
	The provision sees the issue entirely in market terms—it sees the consumer in terms of a market. The object of including the words "accessibility and usability" is to meet that point. It is all very well having choice, value for money and the rest, but if there are people who are not able to access or use the services, then their needs are not being met. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that in interpreting and performing its primary duty and in furthering the interests of consumers, Ofcom takes into account issues of accessibility and usability alongside the other issues of affordability, choice and quality. As we have heard, if services are not accessible and widely usable, disabled consumers, those with literacy problems and many for whom the digital services are difficult to use will not be able to exercise real choice or to obtain the value for money mentioned in the Bill.
	My noble friend Lord Currie emphasised that Ofcom is a creature of statute. Therefore, what the Bill does or does not make explicit really matters. That was borne out in paragraph 16 on page 9 of the report by the Joint Committee:
	"If duties are not stated with sufficient clarity in legislation, there is potential for regulators to exercise their functions in a manner at odds with the intentions of Government and Parliament. In determining OFCOM's general duties, Parliament will do much to set the terms under which that body will perform its functions".
	So there is an argument that the current wording could mean that Ofcom overlooks the vital issues of accessibility and usability while fulfilling its other functions under the clause; or indeed that it will take a less robust approach.
	We believe that it is far better to be explicit and to state that that the Government expect the new regulator to work for the basic right of disabled and older people to access and enjoy the same information and resources as the rest of society.
	In reply to the previous group of amendments, my noble friend Lord McIntosh pointed out the diversity of the requirements of disabled people. I declare a past interest which I should have declared at the beginning of my remarks. For nine and a half years before I entered government I was executive producer of the weekly "Link" programme for people with disabilities. Every week we had 15 minutes of television. I am well aware of the diverse requirements of disabled people, who have many different disabilities, and of the need for "accessibility and usability" to be clearly stated among the general duties.
	Later amendments deal with particular aspects of a disability. We know that disabled people have a special requirement of "accessibility and usability". The later amendments involve audio description, sign language, subtitling and so on. The amendment is intended to ensure that in addition to those specific requirements—which, to some extent, are scattered through the Bill, as my noble friend explained in response to the previous group of amendments—there should be an overarching requirement with regard to disability in particular of accessibility and usability, and that that should be clearly set out in the general duties.
	I am sure that my noble friend has a briefing that says, "resist" but I cannot for the life of me see why there could be any problem about including the words "accessibility and usability" in the clause, which refers to,
	"choice, price, quality of service and value for money".
	I beg to move.

Lord Addington: The noble Lord pointed out that unless a provision is added to the Bill, particularly in this context, this approach will not become a prime requirement. We shall later consider various amendments relating to disability and much of our debate will be about how we have not got the best out of existing technology. We have not done so, but we could have done so with more of a will and more pushing here and there. Having "accessibility and usability of services" early in the Bill would be a great spur and help us to avoid those problems. It would also help us to deal with current technical problems, which the noble Lord discussed. I refer to the farcical history of audio description: there was a requirement to produce it but no one was able to use it. That is a smack in the face of the Government's protestation that we do not need such a provision. If it happened once, it will happen again. Technology will advance. There is the idea that technology will always be able to solve problems if we can bring it into the argument, develop awareness and ensure that producers know that they should be doing something in this regard. That is a huge part of this field, which deals with many disabilities and, in individual cases, disability packages. Unless such a provision is placed up front in the Bill, the Government will miss things, not through any lack of will or good intention but because the proposal asks too much. There should be a requirement to take action as a primary duty.

Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I too support the amendment. To pursue the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, someone from a disability organisation said:
	"All too often in the past regulators with a weak accessibility remit have overlooked opportunities to strengthen the inclusion of disabled people".
	They cite the example of the awarding of licences for the new digital terrestrial service, which is a case in point. The ITC could have made accessibility for disabled people a key criterion in the awarding of the licences, but it did not. Nor did it use the opportunity to require bidders to demonstrate how they would provide access to audio description. The person who briefed me on this amendment wrote:
	"so the new Freeview service is a disaster from that point of view".

Baroness Wilcox: I support the amendment, as one would expect in view of what I said on the previous group of amendments. I was very interested to learn about the weekly "Link". One learns much in this place about what other noble Lords get up to. "Accessibility and usability" are words that are precious to people who do not have easy access to services. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, pointed out, we will increasingly access such services through technology. I am only too delighted to support the amendment. We are trying to introduce such a provision early in the Bill so that everything follows from it.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In light of my response to the previous amendment, it will be clear that I am far from antagonistic to the amendment's objective. When the matter arose in Committee in the Commons, we said that we should consider a way in which to achieve that objective. The proposal was moved in a similar manner in the House of Commons. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, reminded us, Clause 3(4) requires Ofcom, in furthering the interests of consumers, to have regard in particular to,
	"choice, price, quality of service and value for money".
	On the face of it, it would not appear to be too difficult to add to that list. However, the difficulty is that the amendment does not quite say what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said. It refers to,
	"accessibility and usability of services".
	However, the noble Lord and other Members of the Committee referred to accessibility and usability of services for people with disabilities, which is not quite the same as what is stated in the amendment. Agreeing to the amendment would have effects much wider than the disability issue. It could crop up all the way through the Bill in unexpected ways. We asked ourselves instead about what the role of Ofcom is and—this is Clause 3, after all—whether it is the most appropriate body to address what are essentially issues of design. I made it clear that I am very nervous indeed about the risk of the move towards electronic communication, which could be to the disadvantage of people with disabilities, as well as the elderly and those on low incomes. We will discuss the issue of design when we consider Amendment No. 39, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. I shall not go into detail at this stage.
	The Government are already active in this sphere, both in Europe, where standards for product manufacture and design are agreed, and through the digital TV action plan. A key part of the digital TV action plan is to ensure that the equipment on offer is usable and accessible to the broadest range of people. The Technology and Equipment Group, which is made up of manufacturers, broadcasters, software/application providers and consumer groups, is making an important contribution to this work. One of its early recommendations—to hold a workshop on inclusive design and usability—will be taken forward in early July. This week, the DTI is hosting an RNIB seminar on the current and future development of audio description services.
	The DTI has appointed the "Generics Group" to carry out research on how consumers engage with digital TV. It will explore the issues surrounding the usability of digital television for all consumers, with a special focus on users with special needs, including the elderly. It will deliver by the end of July. Bringing together all the people who can make a difference in this area is the proper role of government, not of the regulator.
	Clause 3(4), which is where the amendment would be inserted, lists some but not all of the particular matters that Ofcom must have regard to. They are the bare essentials; the list is not exhaustive, and I do not claim that it is. It is important that they should be read in the context of the commitment to the interests of persons with disabilities at Clause 3(3)(i) and by the specific provisions throughout the Bill, to which I referred earlier.
	Looking forward to Amendment No. 39 and backwards to my account of what is actually being done by government and the regulator and to my response to earlier amendments—and in view of my response to this amendment—I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.

Lord Carter: I am grateful to the Minister. I shall obviously not press the amendment in Committee, which is the time to probe. That allows the Government to make a considered and constructive response and avoids the tedium of having to seek the opinion of the House at Report.
	I thank all Members of the Committee who spoke. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, gave the good example of audio description. We shall return to that later. It is certainly available but it is neither accessible nor usable.
	As I understood my noble friend the Minister, he accepted the objective of the amendment but said that the problem was in the drafting. I tried to make it as succinct as possible, but he said that that made it much too wide. If I had made it specific to disabled people, I am sure that he would have said that it was much too narrow. I was rather surprised when he seemed to find a problem with having wider "accessibility and usability" throughout the Bill. I thought that this was a communications Bill. So what is the problem with wider accessibility and usability? As always, I shall consider my noble friend's response. I am not convinced at this stage but, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Wilcox: moved Amendment No. 26:
	Page 4, line 22, at end insert "and publish the reasoning for the resolution of any conflict between their general duties"

Baroness Wilcox: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 26, but I shall not move Amendment No. 28. This amendment requires Ofcom to publish a document in the event of a conflict between its general duties explaining how it reached a decision one way or another. It is a probing amendment.
	As Her Majesty's Government have conceded that in the interests of transparency it is necessary for Ofcom to publish an annual summary of how it resolves conflict between its general duties, a further question remains to be asked: what does the Minister envisage will happen between times and what about particularly difficult or controversial cases? Surely it is desirable, especially during the early years of Ofcom's existence and whenever a novel conflict of its general duties arises, to publish a document outlining its reasoning at the time of the decision. That appears to be common sense if the Minister for DCMS in another place, Dr Kim Howells, is correct, when he expects, and I quote,
	"Ofcom to be a model of good regulatory practice".
	The first of the principles of regulation is transparency.
	A short summary once a year is not sufficient to guarantee transparency. In order for communication users and providers alike to have confidence in the new regulator, it is essential that they are informed about the rationale behind the decisions that Ofcom makes, especially in the case of appeals. Does the Minister envisage further publication by Ofcom on this matter above and beyond that included in the annual report? I beg to move.

Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I support the noble Baroness in moving this amendment. I await with great interest the Minister's reply. It seems to me that in some ways the amendment goes to the heart of the Bill and to its central dilemma, which is that to an unusual degree the Bill produces a marriage between two great departments of state which have widely conflicting responsibilities. On the one hand there are the broadcasting responsibilities that go with the DCMS and on the other hand there are the equally important responsibilities of the DTI for telecommunications and the global marketplace .
	In any normal legislation that comes before the House it is normal for the department of state and the Secretary of State to reconcile the conflicts that inevitably arise. There is the famous remark of the Scottish left-wing MP of the 1930s, Jimmy Maxton: "If you cannot ride two horses in this bloody circus you are not much good at it, are you?" In this case there is not the normal issue of reconciling conflicts of interest within a normal department of state, but of doing so within the two great departments of state that have conflicting interests and that have a history of representing important national interests.
	I well remember when I was chairman of the old IBA being summoned to a meeting in the House of Lords by my Minister. That was at the time when we were just starting geostationary satellites and BSkyB was on the horizon. When I arrived here and went to the office of the Home Secretary in this House I discovered to my dismay that he was not there and I was directed to the office of the Secretary of State for the DTI. I was not very pleased. When I arrived at the office we had a discussion and I did not receive the impression that the Home Secretary of the day was very pleased with the arrangement because there was the first vivid example of the troubles that lay ahead with the development of telecommunication's technology, the increasing convergence of the issues of telecommunications and the national interests involved in that, and the interests of broadcasting.
	I do not know the solution to that issue, but I believe that the amendment of the noble Baroness has pinpointed an important aspect of the Bill. It will be necessary for Parliament to be able to have the necessary evidence on a continuing basis, especially in the earlier years of the working of the new Act, of how the genuine conflicts of interest between two great departments of state will be resolved. I have seldom come across blander language in a Bill than appears in Clause 3(5) and (6):
	"Where it appears to OFCOM that any of their general duties conflict with each other in a particular case, they must secure that the conflict is resolved in the manner they think best in the circumstances".
	We shall all want to know a great deal more about the circumstances as they emerge as the months and the years go by. I notice in the Explanatory Notes that there is a marvellous explanation:
	"References to the Secretary of State in the Bill mean any Secretary of State. In practice, some of the functions conferred upon the Secretary of State will be exercised by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport jointly and others by only one of them".
	I believe that last week in Committee on this Bill I mentioned that just as two cooks in a kitchen are a problem, I foresee immense problems ahead with two major Secretaries of State involved. I do not conceal my own interest in trying to ensure that the broadcasting interest, which appears to be so important to the character and quality of our society, is adequately maintained in that conflict. It is a real conflict and requires adequate machinery of government to deal with it.

Lord Crickhowell: I had not intended to intervene, but I shall do so only briefly. I have been prompted by the remarks that I have just heard. I was a regulator—chairman of the National Rivers Authority—answerable to the Department of the Environment and to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. On at least one occasion—I could think of others if I put my mind to it—the issues were so contentious that they had to be resolved by No. 10 Downing Street. I can confirm that where two departments of state are responsible for one body there are complex issues that are sometimes difficult to resolve.

Lord Borrie: The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, whose interventions in matters of this kind I greatly respect and always enjoy, has allowed himself to make a little fun of subsection (6) with its reference to the conflict of duties that may arise. As he is the former member of a government and a former regulator, I would have thought that he would welcome the openness and honesty of subsection (6) in which there is a recognition that conflicts of duty may arise and in which it states that Ofcom shall resolve such conflicts. That seems to me to be an excellent subsection. By the same token clearly, as consumers and as members of the public, we should all expect that Ofcom explains itself when it has the problem of resolving a conflict of duty. Therefore I believe that this is a good amendment.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: In following the noble Lords, Lord Thomson of Monifieth and Lord Borrie, I apologise to the Committee for using an illustration that I have used on a previous occasion. I remember discussing the extraordinary kaleidoscope of strategies that were required under the Greater London Authority Bill that the Mayor was charged with setting up. I recall in Committee in another place asking Miss Glenda Jackson, who was the Parliamentary Secretary in charge of the Bill at that time, how differences between the various strategies would be resolved if they were in conflict. In response she made a very long speech at the end of which—it required a degree of textual analysis—she said that they would not conflict because the Bill prevented them from doing so. That is a nice and pious thought. If it was applied to the criminal law, prison numbers would melt at a stroke and penal policy would appear to be a great deal more effective than it had previously been.
	The real world is not like that. Priorities must be calibrated. I support my noble friend's worthwhile exploration of this complex dilemma, on which the noble Lords, Lord Thomson and Lord Borrie, have also shed light.

Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I am emboldened to intervene briefly on some general aspects of this matter. At an earlier stage in the debate I said that realistically it was not likely that in five years' time Ofcom would be reporting jointly to two Secretaries of State. I believe that it is important for the Government to give some thought to the mechanism for reporting. I suggest that there should be a Select Committee of both Houses which would receive a report from Ofcom once a year.
	Otherwise, the DCMS and the DTI Select Committees in another place will want them and, I have no doubt, yet another committee. One will find Ofcom executives spending the greater part of the year preparing for hearings in front of several different Select Committees in another place. We need to focus and create one Select Committee. If we think we can create a single Ofcom, we surely can create a single Select Committee. The admirable work done by the committee of scrutiny under my noble friend Lord Puttnam surely is a good way ahead: a joint committee of both Houses, to which Ofcom would report once a year.

Lord Davies of Oldham: This is an interesting debate against the background of a substantial meeting of minds on the issue in another place. The Bill contains government amendments which were tabled in response to pressure from the Opposition with regard to these important issues. Let us be absolutely clear: the Government accept all representations which are made about the necessity for transparency on the part of Ofcom.
	Perhaps I may deal with the original point raised by the noble Baroness about how frequently Ofcom will report on its decisions. In its annual report it will seek to identify the major issues which reflect its principles and the decisions which it has taken during the preceding year. It is fairly obvious why we cannot accept an amendment which looks as though every decision should be subject to such a report. If the board meets 10 times a year and there are 12 issues of substance which it debates at each meeting—which makes for a fairly substantial meeting—one would expect those decisions to form the basis of the annual report. As noble Lords have indicated, it is enormously important to all stakeholders and the wider public that full information is available.
	However, the board will not concern itself with dozens or hundreds of decisions that Ofcom may be taking with regard to individual small stakeholders which raise no significant issue of principle. The board will not be debating them. Therefore, it would be very odd indeed to suggest that documentation was necessary to detail what might consist of hundreds of cases. Anyone who has been involved in a regulatory authority—and I am grateful for the slight nod of assent from the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell—would appreciate that point. So of course we recognise that the major issues before the board will need to be transparently identified and how Ofcom has reconciled the conflicting interests must be made abundantly clear.
	I add also that Ofcom already gives public notes on the deliberations of its meetings. Clearly, issues of substantial principle which the board is considering will not await an annual report and Ofcom will put those into the public domain. So, within that framework, I accept the contention of the noble Baroness that just the annual report would not be sufficient because of the inevitable factor of delay.
	I turn to the more general issue first raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. It caused me to shudder in my seat when he talked a little about the tectonic plates of two great ministries colliding. We do not see earthquakes ahead. We rather belong to an age of joined-up government where we expect our two departments to work in mutual amity and consideration. In fact that mutual amity, consideration and forethought is present in the Bill. That is why we all enjoy a broad consensual perspective on the merits of this Bill now that it has emerged from another place and is before your Lordships.
	Of course there will be differences which will need to be identified. At present, I have no comment to make on the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Gordon. I recognise what he said. I shall certainly look at the matter, although I must say that it is for Parliament to make a decision on that issue rather than the executive. However, I recognise the fact that inevitably with a body of this kind, with its very substantial interests, there will be widespread interest in both Houses of Parliament with different perspectives on how to respond.
	In general terms, I hope that I have given the obvious assurances that we think the Bill was improved in another place as a result of Opposition arguments and amendments, that led us to change this clause, to clarify the issues. I am a little saddened at the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that perhaps the phraseology is a little bland. I thought that it was a masterpiece of draftsmanship and expressed the aspirations of all good people and true, and even Members of the Committee, in relation to the issues. Of course the objective is for this body to be transparent and open. Issues of principle must be before the public and stakeholders, otherwise they cannot organise themselves in response to these important issues.
	I add that the Bill's approach reflects the recommendation from the joint scrutiny committee, which also accepts that requiring Ofcom to explain every decision by reference to its general duties would be unduly onerous. I hope that I have given assurances to the Committee. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able, on that basis, to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Wilcox: I thank the Minister for his explanation and for taking the trouble to answer my two questions which I still ask. First: what does the Minister envisage will happen between times? I think the answer I received was that he did not really envisage anything, but he hoped that the regulator will choose to report. My second question was: what about particularly difficult or controversial cases? That did not cover every decision but was for particularly difficult or controversial cases. However, as the Minister said, this is an aspiration. It seems that the Government are becoming more and more aspirational by the day. Hopes and aspirations are wonderful things, but they are not always met.
	I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, my noble friend Lord Crickhowell and the noble Lord, Lord Borrie—whom I know well from his days as the Director-General of the Office of Fair Trading, and I was very interested that he supported the amendment—to my noble friend Lord Brooke and to the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, who brought forward a very interesting idea.
	I said that this was a probing amendment. So for the moment I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: moved Amendment No. 27:
	Page 4, line 38, at end insert—
	( ) In performing their duties under this section OFCOM shall have a duty to consult the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly over matters of specific concern, respectively to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland."

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I shall speak to Amendment No. 27, but my remarks may also be relevant to the other amendments in the group. Telecommunications and broadcasting are not devolved; they are a UK-wide industry subject to EU directives, regulation of frequencies, internal market regulation, and so on. But there are some specific issues that are pertinent to Wales which, I believe, are also pertinent to Scotland and Northern Ireland. Perhaps I may address some issues for Wales.
	BBC Wales, Radio Wales and Radio Cymru, S4C, HTV and the independent radio channels are all important broadcasters focused specifically on Wales, the people of Wales and their needs. However, because of the topography, the roll-out of cable is restricted to south Wales and in large areas of Wales there is no mobile telephony coverage at all. Within Wales, the population is diverse. There are those who have Welsh as their first language; those who have English as their first language; some who have no Welsh at all. There is also a marked difference between the populations and their needs between the north and the south; the rural and the urban areas. Even within the urban areas, there are the Welsh Valleys.
	The proposal for an Ofcom office in Wales is to be welcomed, as is that for a Welsh representative on the content board, but that is not enough. We need a full consumer panel for Wales to cover the issues specifically relating to Wales, and to work with the Welsh Assembly government to meet the specific needs of Wales. The Welsh Assembly government does not have an executive role, but it must be consulted under the Bill through the statutory routes.
	The Welsh Assembly government has an advisory group to a Minister, and the report of that group to the Minister for Culture, Sport and the Welsh Language was laid before the Welsh Assembly government on 27th March 2003 and submitted to the noble Lord, Lord Currie, the chairman of Ofcom, on 3rd April 2003. The report makes a recommendation entirely compatible with the amendment: the preferred option in the recommendation. I cite the report. There were two options for an advisory structure. Option 1 was,
	"That an Ofcom Wales Communications Council should be established to advise and assist the executive team in Wales"—
	That was the option strongly endorsed. The other option, which was not, was,
	"That no advisory structure be created by Ofcom, and that the executive team in Wales should rely instead on a structured relationship with the National Assembly and the Welsh Assembly Government".
	My amendment is entirely compatible with the recommendation in option 1. The amendment would acknowledge the interests of devolved bodies in matters that concern the economic and cultural development of devolved government not only in Wales, but, I suggest, in the other devolved governments in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I beg to move.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 27, Amendment No. 27A:
	Line 5, at end insert "and give due consideration to representations made by the National Assembly for Wales"

Lord Thomas of Gresford: Of course I support the duty to consult set out in Amendment No. 27, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. Amendment No. 27A would add a specific duty to give due consideration to representations made by the National Assembly. It is one thing for Ofcom to consult the National Assembly; it is another for the Assembly to take the initiative by advancing concerns to Ofcom on which it wants Ofcom's consideration.
	For example, on the first day in Committee, we were discussing jobs and creativity. One cannot imagine Ofcom picking up the telephone to ask, "How are things going with the creative companies in Caernarfon?" Those are matters of jobs—employment—that one would imagine the National Assembly would be anxious to take up with Ofcom in due course.
	A proposal has been made that there should be concordats between Ofcom and the Secretary of State's office. That is unsatisfactory; that is not consultation with the elected representatives of the National Assembly. Although broadcasting is not a devolved matter, the National Assembly has and will continue to have an immediate interest in how a broadcaster serves the needs of the people of Wales. No doubt, following his answer on a previous amendment, the Minister will point to Clause 3(3)(l), which states that Ofcom must have regard to,
	"the different interests of persons in the different parts of the United Kingdom and of those living in rural and in urban areas".
	But that is not enough. The decision was taken that there should be no national representatives on the board of Ofcom. There is no advocate for specific Welsh issues on that board, which, we have just been told, meets 10 times a year and which therefore will not have time to consider such matters in detail. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, the provision of one member on the consumer and content panels is by no means satisfactory.
	The fact is that Wales, like Scotland and Northern Ireland, has a democratic, policy-making forum that both creates and implements public policy in many areas in which Ofcom will also have responsibility. Mutual understanding and agreement will require close co-operation. That is a structural issue, not a cosmetic exercise. It is essential that Ofcom continually recognises that the cultural diversity of the United Kingdom must be reflected on our screens and through our radios.
	Perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 61, which has been proposed by a cross-party group. The proposed new clause sets out a statutory duty to establish consultative councils with membership determined only after the views of the National Assembly and the equivalent Scottish and Northern Irish bodies have been ascertained. That follows the recommendations made to the National Assembly, as the noble Baroness pointed out. If it is unacceptable to have a consultative council, we propose Amendments Nos. 59 and 78, which give specific authority for the board to establish committees and panels under Clause 12(5), which will have a similar effect. I shall speak briefly to Amendment No. 93, which would place a specific obligation on Ofcom to publish an annual report on its activities in Wales.
	I am sure that the Government will accept that the amendments are intended to be helpful and to clarify the role of Ofcom and its subsidiary committees. I have no doubt that Ofcom will try to establish a good and effective working relationship with the National Assembly, but that should not be voluntary—a matter of goodwill that can be revoked at any time. If ownership is to be thrown to the four winds, it is essential that the regulators are properly informed and given the resources, advice and tools to maintain the quality of regional broadcasting.
	A London-centric or multinational corporation will not understand the specific needs of our unique communications ecology in Wales. It will be tempted to cut down on hours and investment in Welsh programming and production. The amendments would assure that that will not happen.
	The primary purpose of the Bill ought not to be to bow the knee to global institutions and corporations but to enrich and inspire the lives of ordinary people—in Wales as in the rest of the United Kingdom. I beg to move.

Lord Crickhowell: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 61 and 93, to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, referred, and which stand in my name and that of other noble Lords who are members of the Joint Committee. They are grouped with Amendments Nos. 27 and 27A but go further than establishing a link with the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
	Amendment No. 61 would establish consultative councils for matters within the responsibility of the board of Ofcom in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and each region of England covered by a regional Channel 3 licensee. The Joint Committee, at paragraph 56 on page 20 of its report, refers to the Bill's requirement that four members of the content board be appointed to represent the interests and opinions of people living in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The committee referred to what it described as,
	"the challenging requirement that the English representatives appointed for this purpose should be 'able to represent the interests and opinions of persons living in the different regions of England'".
	If the handful of committee members will really be able to do that, they will be very remarkable people.
	It must be understood that the needs of people in different parts of the United Kingdom are strikingly different. I am perhaps in a better position than almost anyone to comment, because I was chairman of the one licence-holder whose licence covered two separate regions—Wales and the west of England. We had to organise entirely different set-ups in Cardiff and Bristol. Welsh viewers wanted completely different kinds of programmes from those wanted by viewers in the west of England. The problems that we had to deal with in each case were entirely different.
	I am sure that the same happens in many English regions. In my experience with the National Rivers Authority, when one tried to merge regions or to suggest that the interests of next-door regions in England were the same, one created outcries and much ill will. For example, the people of Cornwall simply do not believe that they have anything to do with the people of Bristol, with whom they are often linked. It is extremely important that the views of different parts of the United Kingdom are adequately referred to and dealt with.
	The ITC, in anticipation of Ofcom's role, has been developing its existing viewer consultative councils in the nations and regions, with more representative content panels able to inform the content board about interests particular to the different parts of the United Kingdom. The ITC also saw merit in the establishment of streamline councils in the nations and regions to be chaired by the relevant members of the content board in providing a link to the devolved administrations.
	Against that background, the Joint Committee welcomed the proposal for national and regional councils reporting to the content board through the designated national members. We recommended that formal provision for their establishment be made on the face of the Bill. We further recommended that, in establishing such councils, Ofcom be required to have regard to the views of relevant devolved institutions. We also recommended that Ofcom be required to include in its annual report accounts of its activities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is the point covered by the second of my amendments.
	The Government responded that it was all a thoroughly good idea but it should be left to Ofcom. That is the reply that we have heard again and again from the Benches opposite today. But the Joint Committee believed that the issue should be included on the face of the Bill because of the importance attached to it in the regions and nations concerned. If the Government think it is a good idea, there can be no strong reason in principle why they should object to its inclusion in the Bill. It is a little hard to see why they should reject the proposition, particularly when it is so strongly supported by the National Assembly for Wales, among others, and other public bodies.
	The case is particularly well summed up in the Welsh Assembly Government's statement of their current position on the Communications Bill:
	"The Assembly Government is pleased that there are provisions in the draft Bill for designated members for Wales on the Content Board and the Consumer Panel. In order to support the work of the designated members for Wales on the Content Board and the Consumer Panel, the Assembly Government's response recommended that the Bill provide for the establishment of an Ofcom Wales Communication Council, which would be able to consider and advise on content, consumer and technical issues in Wales. The UK Government appears to be receptive to the concept of such a body, but its establishment is not included on the face of the Bill. It is important that viewers and the public at large in Wales have a channel to voice their opinions on content issues. The Independent Television Commission in Wales had its own Viewer Consultative Council until recently. Furthermore, we have the Welsh Advisory Committee on Telecommunications, which was established under the 1984 Telecommunications Act to advise the Director General of the Office of Telecommunications (OFTEL). This Advisory Committee will cease to function once Ofcom is fully established. The Assembly Government therefore attaches great importance to the need to establish a communications council or committee for Wales, and that this is included on the face of the Bill".
	The debate on the subject in the Standing Committee in another place was unsatisfactory for two reasons. All the relevant amendments were moved by Mr Simon Thomas, the Plaid Cymru Member for Ceredigion. The merits of the amendments were then lost in a welter of politically charged accusations that they were all about extending devolution. The charge was completely unfair, but the Labour members could not resist playing politics with some sensible, practical proposals.
	Mr Thomas also played into his critics' hands by tabling a new clause that probably went too far. It suggested that the Secretary of State should appoint the committee members after seeking nominations from the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the National Assembly for Wales, and that the committee should then issue recommendations, not just on content issues to the content board, but on all the activities of Ofcom with their respective regions. The Minister, Dr Howells, in responding to the raft of amendments, concentrated almost entirely on that flawed clause. The difficulty is that, if one tables a number of amendments, skilful Ministers reply to one that is weak and pass over all the others that might have greater merit. That is exactly what happened on that occasion.
	I draw attention to two particularly contentious observations by the Minister. Referring to the board members representing England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, he said:
	"Through such mechanisms, the interests of the nations will most appropriately be represented".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 12/12/02; col. 105.]
	I am bound to say that, without committees of that kind, it is extremely doubtful that they will be adequately represented.
	On the question of appointments, the Minister produced what I think is one of the most tortuous solutions that I have ever seen devised by a Minister. He said that he could not see any reason for the formal involvement of the devolved Scottish Parliament or Assemblies, and added:
	"When considering such appointments, we shall expect Ofcom to consult the relevant territorial departments and, through them, the devolved Administrations in order to seek nominations for suitable candidates. We envisage that such consultative arrangements could be set up in a memorandum of understanding between Ofcom and the relevant Secretary of State for each nation. The final appointments will, and must, be a matter for Ofcom".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 12/12/02; col. 106.]
	I understand that it is always a task in government now to find something for the Secretaries of State to do, but that is a bizarre way of approaching the system of appointment and consulting about them. We ought to do better than that. On that occasion, the Minister produced the argument that we will, no doubt, hear in a moment and say that Ofcom has the power to do everything that is necessary and that no more need be said about it.
	As I have made clear, my amendments deal with content issues. Amendment No. 27, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, is wider in scope. It deals with telecommunications matters as well. It has the support of the Welsh Advisory Committee on Telecommunications. The WACT acknowledges that telecommunications and broadcasting are not devolved functions and says that that is understandable, in the context of the overwhelmingly UK-wide structure of both industries and the regulatory framework for the internal market and competition, which derives from a nexus of European Union directives. However, the committee then raises some specific concerns. It says that there is a danger that, if consumer panel members are appointed and—perhaps more importantly—dismissed by the main board of Ofcom, the consumer panel will be perceived publicly as a tame poodle, rather than a watchdog. It then points to the important precedent of the advisory committee for telecommunications specified in the Telecommunications Act 1984.
	At the appropriate moment, I shall move two different amendments, but I will conclude now by saying that I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. It is correct that Wales should be able to express its interest in and concerns about telecommunications matters, as well as broadcasting issues. I am sure that that goes for Scotland, Northern Ireland and the English regions as well.

Lord Prys-Davies: I support all the amendments in the group. As the Bill impinges on some of the major functions devolved to the Assembly, it is extraordinary that there is no provision in Clause 3 that requires Ofcom to consult the Welsh Assembly. There is no provision anywhere in the Bill about the relationship between the Assembly and Ofcom.
	It is strange because the policy statement on the draft Communications Bill, published in May last year, was a helpful starting point. Paragraph 4.4.1.7 said:
	"The Government expects Ofcom to consult the relevant Secretary of State and devolved administrations in making appointments".
	Paragraph 8.7 states:
	"We will expect Ofcom to develop good links with the relevant policy committees and executives of the devolved assemblies and with representatives of the English regions".
	I understand, therefore, the dismay of Welsh Assembly Members, when they came to appreciate that the Bill placed no statutory duty on Ofcom to consult the Assembly. Amendments Nos. 27 and 27A would remedy that omission, and I support them.
	As the Bill stands, there is the inevitable risk that specific Welsh interests, such as those relating to the bilingual nature of broadcasting in Wales and television reception in Wales, will not receive the attention that they merit. On 3rd April, the then Welsh Minister for Culture, Sport and Welsh Language wrote to Members of your Lordships' House with an interest in Welsh affairs to alert us to the fact that the Assembly was not satisfied with the Bill. The Assembly wanted changes, and it wanted the changes that are proposed in the amendments. I cannot understand why the UK Government should refuse the reasonable requests made by the Assembly. How could the Government have thought it right that two persons—one on the consumer panel and the other on the content board—could properly represent the Welsh public interest?
	That brings me to a matter touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. In the Standing Committee in another place, the Minister, Dr Kim Howells, envisaged that,
	"consultative arrangements could be set up in a memorandum of understanding between Ofcom and the relevant Secretary of State for each nation".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 12/12/02; col. 106.]
	He also said that Ofcom could consult the devolved administrations through the Secretary of State. Is that really what is intended? I would be grateful if the Minister could elaborate on what the Government have in mind. I am bound to question whether such an arrangement would be adequate to protect the interests of Wales, particularly when the Secretary of State and the devolved Government do not share an allegiance to a political manifesto. Is it the Minister's intention that the Assembly should be a party to the memorandum of understanding?
	There is a memorandum of understanding between the UK Government and the devolved administrations in being. It was presented to Parliament in July last year, and I shall ask the Minister a question about it. As there appears to be a disagreement—to use that term—between the devolved Government in Wales, on the one hand, and the DTI and DCMS, on the other, on the matters that we are discussing, should not the matter be referred to the joint ministerial council, under paragraph A1.7 of the supplementary agreement? We require clarification of that issue.
	Having said that, I support the amendments.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I shall confine my brief remarks to matters relating to Wales, although, with a little transposition, they will be equally applicable to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
	My first point is that this matter is the first evidence of real discord between the United Kingdom Government and the Assembly Government in Cardiff over legislative proposals. That discord is evident in the difference between the position taken by the Government and that taken by the Assembly Minister, Miss Jenny Randerson. Amendment No. 27, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, rightly highlights the inadequacy of the Bill's provision for the national regions. The National Assembly appears to have had no role in the appointment of Professor Ian Hargreaves of Cardiff to the Ofcom board. It will have no role in the appointment of Wales-designated members of the content board and consumer panel. That is a dreadful slight to the Assembly.

Lord Crickhowell: If there is an implication that the noble Lord did not approve of the appointment of Professor Hargreaves, I must say that I cannot think of a more suitable candidate. I am sure that, given the chance, the Assembly would have endorsed him.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: Yes, but the point is that it was not given the chance. I believe that the Government's proposed concordat between Ofcom and the Assembly adds insult to injury. Concordats are normally between the Assembly and departments of state. As the Assembly Government Minister, Jenny Randerson, put it,
	"any such arrangements will be purely voluntary and based on goodwill and could be revoked by Ofcom at any time".
	Having considered all that, I am not at all sure that the requirement of Amendment No. 27 for consultation with the national representative bodies is enough. It is less than half a loaf; it is only a crumb of comfort. We should take the much more positive line that my noble friend represented as a member of the Joint Committee. I am of course delighted that under Clause 1 Ofcom will have separate offices in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England and that presumably Ofcom will appoint people to run them. But in Wales, for example, with all its distinctiveness, including the Welsh language, who will advise the officers?
	My noble friend is on the right lines with Amendment No. 61 which lays a duty on the content board to establish consultative councils. But is there not much to be said for more general advisory councils to correspond to the BBC's councils and other advisory bodies in the Ofcom field? Of course, that is true of Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as Wales.
	Quite frankly, I must tell the Government that there is a head of steam behind this demand for a council in Wales and I believe that it makes a lot of sense. As we have already heard, there was a group set up to advise the National Assembly for Wales under the chairmanship of Geraint Talfan Davies, a former controller of the BBC. The group has certainly made the case and the Assembly has accepted it.
	I shall not deploy the arguments; they are all there in the group's report. But I shall take a slight dig at the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, because he has always said—I am sure that many of us have heard him—that we should give the National Assembly what it wants. Are we going to give it what it wants or are we going to deny it, which is the case here?
	I believe that we should concede the demand—

Lord Thomas of Gresford: Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that Miss Jenny Randerson who he quoted is a Liberal Democrat.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I do not think that even she, at the distance between us, can alter the argument or the case which I put. The noble Lord is aware of the advice that he has given this Committee on a number of occasions and the situation that I highlight now. Are we to concede what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has frequently pressed upon us and give the National Assembly what it wants or are we to deny it? I believe that it is right on this occasion.
	Its broadband policy has shown that it has a degree of expertise that justifies its proactive involvement, a point acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on the first day in Committee on the Bill, at col. 668 of the Official Report on 29th April 2003. Therefore, I shall consider tabling an amendment on Report outlining the proposition that there should be councils advising Ofcom in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.

Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I have added my name to Amendment No. 78 and I wish to add a Scottish voice to what has been predominantly a Welsh argument. I want to make two points. Amendment No. 78 proposes that Ofcom should create committees for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We urge that from these Benches. However, I urge an additional point to those previously made.
	As regards the quality of public service broadcasting in this country and the manner in which it has grown, its strength has lain in its arm's length relationship with the parliament and government of the day. What is good enough for the United Kingdom Parliament should be good enough for the National Assembly for Wales—if I may say so, with all deference—and for the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, while there is a need for Ofcom to ensure that it has the necessary committees to enable it to collect the views and interests of people throughout the United Kingdom, I regard public service broadcasting in this country as being one of the great cements that holds the whole United Kingdom together and creates a common climate of opinion, for all the diversities of geography and language. I would be very resistant to seeing the tradition established from the founding of the BBC that broadcasting organisations serve the public interest best by being kept at reasonable arm's length from the elected politicians, whether in the United Kingdom Parliament or in the Assembly or parliaments of other parts of the United Kingdom.

Lord Alderdice: Having added my name to Amendments Nos. 59 and 78, I am gratified to hear the case for them put so eloquently by my noble friends Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Thomson of Monifieth. In respect of Northern Ireland, there is a further important issue. The border—which stops many things, although not everything, as has been frequently noted—does not stop radio broadcasting, telecommunications, cell telephones or television. Indeed, a number of our broadcasters, particularly in the commercial sector, now receive a great deal of their advertising and their viewing from the other side of the border.
	That is very important in terms of content. There are a number of people in Northern Ireland who, because of their sporting interests, their cultural interests or their wider intellectual and political interests, want to receive content which is not exclusively United Kingdom content. This is something that has been understood and achieved by broadcasters and broadcasting organisations because there are people from within Northern Ireland right across the communities making interventions and bringing to the attention of broadcasting organisations and regulators the needs of the people.
	There are also technical matters which are of great importance because people go backwards and forwards across the border. There are very real issues in terms of telecommunications. For example, as regards telephone numbers, frequently, those north of the border have found it more congenial and sometimes more effective to contact their colleagues in Dublin for an outcome rather than their colleagues in London, and frequently, through Dublin, London is more co-operative. Therefore, the idea of having something in Northern Ireland is very important for the people there.
	This has been recognised in an international binding agreement. In the Good Friday agreement the question of broadcasting was included as one of the issues on which there would be co-operation. Therefore, I seek a response from the Minister as to whether the implications of that agreement have been understood and implemented in the conduct of the legislation and, in that sense, whether there have been consultations outside the United Kingdom—as evidenced by the activities of the Prime Minister today—which are a very important part of relationships with my part of the UK. That is not the only argument in respect of Northern Ireland, but it is in addition to the arguments already made by noble Lords in respect of Scotland, Wales and, indeed, the English regions.

Lord McNally: I am a signatory to Amendments Nos. 59, 6l, 78, and 93. Noting the two horses that Ministers have to ride—the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that broadcasting has undoubtedly been a great unifier of this United Kingdom of ours while at the same time recognising and reflecting national diversities and aspirations—I remind the Committee of just two points.
	First, when this debate began some two years ago, much of the lobbying was for Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish members of the full Ofcom board. Some of us resisted great pressure from our regional parties on the matter because we accepted the Government's argument that the main board should be kept small and not regionally specific. Secondly, my real point is one that reflects all these amendments and the arguments that have been made. The following advice is to be found in the recommendation contained in paragraph 59 of the Joint Committee's report:
	"We are conscious of the fact that Parliament has already decided that the overwhelming majority of functions for which OFCOM is responsible should not be devolved. Nevertheless, it is right that the Bill provides further assurance that specifically Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland interests will not be neglected".
	All the amendments in this group reflect the fact that such assurances are not yet contained in the Bill. Ministers would be well advised to recognise that.

Baroness Buscombe: We have considerable sympathy for all the amendments, but I was especially moved by the words of my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy who spoke passionately in relation to the need to consider Wales. All noble Lords who have spoken have made useful contributions to the debate. However, it is important to balance the need for a board that is not too large and to avoid establishing committees for their own sake with the need properly to recognise the very distinct interests of those from our different devolved regions.
	In relation to Amendment No. 93, I should point out to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell that one could more easily have deflected any charge that one is seeking to defend devolution for its own sake if that amendment included reference to "England". Indeed, it was the very fact that there is no specific reference to reporting the activities within England that deterred me from supporting the amendment.

Lord Davies of Oldham: When the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, rose to introduce her amendment some three-quarters of an hour ago, as a veteran of devolution debates in the mid-1970s I noted that we were in for a late dinner hour. That has certainly proved to be the case. Indeed, we should have a very late dinner if I were equipped to answer in detail every point raised during this wide-ranging debate.
	During the time when the debate seemed to be focusing overwhelmingly on the relationship between the Welsh Assembly and its role and on the position of Ofcom, I was enormously grateful for the noble Lord on his white charger, coming from Scotland, to remind us that broadcasting in this country is a reserved matter for a very good reason; indeed, broadcasting is absolutely critical to the unity of the end culture of the United Kingdom, as are the arrangements that we make in that respect—a point reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord McNally.
	We all recognise that public service broadcasting, which relates to so much of the work carried out, is a national concept of a fundamental principle that none of us would wish to put in jeopardy. Therefore, we must carefully consider the question of the representational role and how we respond to local communities, to the nationalities, and to the regions, who have a proper stake in ensuring that broadcasting is also responsive to local needs and interests.
	There is a balance to be struck. In the course of my response, I hope that I shall defend the balance that the Bill seeks to establish. I am sure that Members of the Committee are well aware of the measures that we have included in the Bill in order to meet our commitment to ensure that there is an effective relationship between Ofcom and all parts of the United Kingdom. Provision has been included in the legislation to place the main Ofcom board under an obligation to have regard to the interests of the different parts of the United Kingdom in carrying out its duties; for Ofcom—this provision was applauded by several noble Lords in the debate—to have offices in each nation and in the English regions; and for there to be designated members on both the content board and the consumer panel to represent the interests of each nation and the English regions.
	I emphasise that the noble Lord, Lord Currie of Marylebone, in his capacity as chairman of Ofcom, has already visited Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and listened most carefully to the strong representations made to him on the way in which Ofcom should discharge that function, and on how it should organise both itself and its committees in order to meet those obligations. Such representations have been reflected in today's debate.
	Amendment No. 27 would require Ofcom to consult the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, and the Northern Ireland Assembly on matters of specific concern to those bodies. Amendment No. 27A, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, would modify that provision by requiring Ofcom to give due consideration to representations made by the National Assembly for Wales.
	When carrying out its duties, Clause 3(3)(l) already requires Ofcom to have regard to the different interests of persons,
	"in the different parts of the United Kingdom".
	The purpose of the provision is to ensure that the interests of the nations and regions are taken fully into account by Ofcom in performing its duties.
	The Bill contains provisions throughout that require Ofcom to consult widely on its policies. The devolved administrations will be part of any consultation process that Ofcom undertakes in compliance with these requirements. Indeed, in recognition of the need to ensure that the devolved administrations are properly involved in the consultations that Ofcom undertakes, one of the measures that we expect Ofcom to put in place is to draw up a memorandum of understanding with each nation. Among other things, that would set out the arrangements for consulting the devolved administrations on particular issues of relevance to them.
	Within that framework we envisage that the consultation in the first instance would be the appropriate territorial Secretary of State. Such Secretaries of State would not be fulfilling their duties unless they, too, took careful note of the representations made to them by the bodies of the nations involved. The appropriate formal arrangements that need to be developed in this area will primarily be the responsibility of the territorial Secretaries of State, but there is no way in which they could reach intelligent decisions without having due regard to the views of the Assembly and of the Parliament.
	I am seeking to give clear reassurances that appropriate consultation is envisaged within the Bill, and that the framework within which it is being operated is one in which broadcasting remains a reserved matter. In doing so, Ofcom will need to give proper consideration to representations made to it. We believe that this will provide a sound basis on which to ensure that the devolved administrations are consulted properly and their views considered. Therefore, we do not accept the need for the amendments and I would ask the noble Baroness and the noble Lord to withdraw them.
	Amendment No. 59 would require Ofcom to authorise the content board to establish committees to provide advice in relation to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 61 would also require the content board to establish consultative committees for each nation, chaired by the respective national members appointed to the content board, and for the regions of England, the chairs of which will also serve as members of the board.
	We have been considering with Ofcom what would be the most appropriate means by which to ensure that the content board receives the advice it will need in relation to the nations and the regions. There is a shared desire to ensure that the arrangements are right, but there are also resource implications for Ofcom—and, indeed, under the amendment, for the individuals serving on the content board—which must be taken into consideration. We hope to be able to discuss these proposals shortly with the relevant territorial departments and the devolved administrations to set out what those arrangements might be. That will provide greater clarity on this issue as the Bill progresses through the House.
	I wish to emphasise that this is a changing situation, one which is evolving rapidly and needs to be worked out through the process of consultation. To that end, I can give the Committee a reassurance that before the Bill has completed its passage through this House we shall have a clearer definition of the nature of consultation which, at this stage of the process, is still being discussed. I hope that Members of the Committee will accept that it is difficult for me to be as definitive at this point as some have sought.
	The Bill already contains a provision to enable Ofcom to authorise the content board to establish committees and panels to advise the board on the carrying out of its functions. We have tried to avoid being overly prescriptive, as what may appear to be necessary now may not be so in the future. We believe, therefore, that the existing provision is sufficient to provide the flexibility needed to allow Ofcom to establish the most suitable arrangements both now and in the future.
	I turn now to Amendment No. 78, which would require the consumer panel to establish and maintain advisory committees for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Apropos Northern Ireland, I thought that my cup was already full, but it then ran over when the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, introduced a dimension to the debate which I had not anticipated and feel singularly ill-equipped to respond to. However, let me give the noble Lord the fundamental assurance that I believe he is seeking. The Government fully recognise the role of broadcasting in the Good Friday agreement. The Bill as drafted does not conflict with the agreement. While I recognise the points made by the noble Lord and the emphasis he sought to lay on the very special dimension of broadcasting in Northern Ireland, I can give him that assurance and I have no doubt that, if it does not meet the point to his satisfaction, he will press me further at subsequent stages of the Bill.
	Members of the Committee will be aware that the Government agreed with the recommendation made by the Joint Scrutiny Committee that the consumer panel should be given a greater degree of independence from Ofcom by being able to determine for itself what committees it wishes to establish. Clause 17 of the Bill allows the consumer panel to set up committees to provide advice about matters relating to its functions. If the consumer panel is now to enjoy exercising this additional level of independence, as recommended by the scrutiny committee and which we have provided for in the Bill, then it must be allowed to decide what committees to establish for itself. Therefore we do not propose to limit the panel's independence by placing a requirement on it, as this amendment would do, to establish either national or any other type of committee.
	I turn finally to Amendment No. 93, which would require Ofcom to include in its annual report accounts of its activities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The amendment seems to take as its starting point an assumption that Ofcom is otherwise likely to report on its activities only as they relate to England, which is a somewhat unlikely concept. Ofcom has a United Kingdom-wide remit, a point clearly made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, in his intervention. That United Kingdom remit can be met only if Ofcom's reports cover all its activities, including those which impact individually and separately on the nations of our country. I cannot see that Ofcom would ever want to limit the accounts it gives in its annual report to activities concerned with England alone. Similarly, where Ofcom carries out significant activities specific to a particular nation, I am sure that it will wish to report on those activities. Indeed, as we discussed in an earlier debate, the Bill demands from Ofcom a substantial degree of transparency in the way it carries out its activities. On that basis, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
	There appeared to creep into the debate on one or two occasions an implication that somehow the relationship between Ofcom and the devolved administrations will be largely dictated by Ofcom's whim. That will not be the case. Ofcom will agree memorandums of understanding with the relevant Secretaries of State covering issues such as consultation on relevant national appointments; it will hold regular meetings with the devolved administrations; and it will produce an account in its annual report of its activities within the nations. So Ofcom has clear obligations built into the Bill in relation to the administrations addressed by this group of amendments.
	I apologise to the Committee for speaking at great length, and I apologise too for having had to glide over certain points that were made with some force during the debate. We are still at an early stage of the Bill. Certain aspects of it will become clearer over the next few weeks. If I have not been able to respond to the satisfaction of all Members of the Committee today, perhaps I will be able to do so at a later stage. On that basis, I hope that I have been able to respond in a manner that will satisfy the Committee at this point and that the amendments will be withdrawn.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I thank the Minister for that reply and for his assurances with regard to the memorandums of understanding. I also thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. While listening to the tone of our discussions, I was struck by the tensions that appear to exist between the devolved governments and the need for a UK-wide remit. I am not sure that I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that there is a degree of incompatibility in seeking to meet the needs of Wales as expressed by the National Assembly for Wales and maintaining a UK-wide responsibility in broadcasting to the whole nation.
	All the contributions have been extremely interesting in relation to the way in which the devolved administrations will look at the rolling responsibilities and monitoring through Ofcom. At this stage, I would like to withhold any decision with regard to my amendments. I shall read carefully all that has been said.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: Before the noble Baroness formally withdraws her amendment, perhaps I may say a few words or I shall not have a Motion before the House.
	In relation to Amendment No. 27A, of course I shall withdraw it if the noble Baroness withdraws her Amendment No. 27. However, I should like to make one or two comments on the Minister's response. A memorandum of understanding made with a Secretary of State is in no way satisfactory. As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, pointed out, the noble Lord underestimates the head of steam which has built up on this issue. The Secretary of State, who, by the Government's own choosing is a part-time Secretary of State because he also spends time in Europe, does not have the direct confidence of the people of Wales enjoyed by the National Assembly. If the noble Lord thinks that the people of Wales are going to be satisfied with some kind of agreement hammered out with the Secretary of State, then he is much mistaken.
	The Minister did not respond to the point that a conflict is arising between the Assembly and the Government and that, as the noble Lord said, it may very well come to machinery being employed to resolve it. The Minister will be building up a great deal of trouble if the views expressed today are not taken seriously by the Government. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment No. 27A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 27, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for that intervention. Extremely serious points have been made and it may be very important to consult outside the Committee and to come back later to the House having considered all the points in hand. This is probably not the time to seek the opinion of the Committee and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 27, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
	Clause 3 agreed to.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In doing so, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 9.1 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Tuberculosis and SARS

Baroness Masham of Ilton: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is being done to combat the spread of tuberculosis and severe acute respiratory syndrome; and what facilities for treatment and after-care are available in the United Kingdom.
	My Lords, my Question on tuberculosis has been queuing up for several months—well before the problem of severe acute respiratory syndrome was made public—but, as much TB is caused by the bacteria mycobacterium tuberculosis and is spread through the air like a common cold, I thought that the subject of SARS would fit into this short but none the less important debate, and so I have included it.
	SARS is easily transmitted by droplets that can travel two to three feet when an infected person coughs or sneezes. Some people are saying that it is a difficult disease to catch. There are confusing messages and the public should know the truth.
	TB is of high prevalence in China, where SARS originated. As a cousin of mine who visited the street markets in southern China said, "They are too horrible for words" and perfect breeding grounds for bugs. In southern China some people live close to birds and animals. Historically the region has been an important source of epidemics, and some diseases can be transmitted from animals and poultry to humans.
	I am most grateful to all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who will speak today. I could not have asked for better Members of your Lordships' House. As the House will know, the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, is a world expert on zoonoses and other infectious diseases, including tuberculosis. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer some of the questions we will raise in the debate.
	I recently asked two nurses, who work as district nurses in London, what we should do to stop TB. They both said, simultaneously, "Stop people spitting". Spit had landed in the eye of one of the nurses. I checked to see what legislation there is and the Library drew a blank. It seems that footballers who spit at opponents on the pitch are the only people who get fined. When I was young, there used to be signs in trains and public places stating that you could be fined for spitting. Is it not now time that this was brought back as a matter of public health?
	SARS has made the world realise how important are new infectious diseases. We should be looking with equal interest at diseases such as HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis. As Sir William Stewart, the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Cabinet, said:
	"It is the combination of global bugs in global numbers, all with a propensity to mutate across the globe, that is an increasing concern".
	There is concern that the scale, the size and the resources of publicly-funded research facilities no longer match their equivalents in the US, Canada, the Netherlands and Germany. The Public Health Laboratory Service, now being subsumed into the new Health Protection Agency, operates from one floor in Colindale, North London, and yet it is expected to deal with a huge range of infectious diseases such as the current avian influenza, Lassa fever, Ebola and the threat of bioterrorism. The Government have laid all these problems at the door of the HPA, which faces the massive task of rebuilding our research base.
	One of my cousins is a microbiologist and loves research. When he was working in Leeds he got frustrated as he did not have time to do his clinical research in the way he felt it should be done. He is now working in Western Australia, with a well-settled family, enjoying sport and his work, which gives him time for research. Unless the Government are prepared to give scientists the backing that they need, it will be a long time before Britain can again take its place in the front ranks of medical science.
	I was most impressed when I heard the right honourable Ian McCartney speak in a personal capacity at a campaign to stop TB. Perhaps he was not what most people expect as typical of the person who gets TB. He was well paid, well housed, well fed; he is white, middle aged and a Member of Parliament. He had become increasingly tired and listless and developed acute abdominal pain in his left side, and the symptoms spread to his groin and testes. It was all put down to stress. Finally, after months, he was diagnosed and treated for non-respiratory TB. This is an example of how TB can affect anyone, anywhere in the body. After the right honourable Member for Makerfield was treated, he suffered a great deal of pain which, after years, was found to be from adhesions.
	The right honourable Member's case illustrates the need for correct diagnosis and for more specialists who can diagnose and treat patients with the expertise they need. I have been in touch with the right honourable Ian McCartney, and I told him about this debate.
	One has to ask what happens in the UK to those on the street or those who have a chaotic lifestyle. The simple requirement of a regular supply of fresh running water is difficult for many, yet to fail to maintain the drug regime is potentially disastrous for the individual and for society as a whole as we see the emergence of drug-resistant strains of tuberculosis.
	Three million people a year die from TB and about 7,000 people are affected in England and Wales every year. There are outbreaks from time to time all over the country in places such as Leicester, Glasgow, Kent and Liverpool, but the highest numbers are in London, which have been compared with third world countries. The areas affected are Newham, Brent, Tower Hamlets, Ealing, Hackney, Islington and Camden.
	With the increase in active cases which is expected in the future, the correct treatment is vital. The most common cause of treatment failure and acquired drug resistance is non-adherence. Predicting non-adherence is highly problematic. Directly observed therapy is the most effective means of combating non-adherence; intermittent—less than daily—regimes facilitate the therapy. Testing the susceptibility of mycobacterium tuberculosis to drugs is essential for identifying resistance and tailoring treatment. Managing multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis is complex and should, when possible, be done in specialised programmes.
	In New York, DOTS was tried, and it worked. The World Health Organisation recommends it throughout the world. Is DOTS currently carried out in Britain and, if not, why not? I was concerned to read in the press that of 43 TB hotspots in England and Wales 86 per cent had insufficient staff to treat patients with the disease.
	As we know, the modern world is small, and air travel is fast. Many of the people developing TB here in the UK have lived abroad; many with HIV/AIDS also have TB. To know the approximate numbers is important for planning health services. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what is being done about testing and ensuring there are adequate treatment and aftercare facilities. Is BCG vaccination being given in schools, and how effective is it?
	It would be most helpful for a global, unified response to the WHO's global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, as it needs more support from most donor countries. The WHO predicts that by 2020 nearly 1 billion people will be newly infected with TB, of whom 70 million will die.
	I look forward to the contributions of your Lordships and the Minister's reply.

Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, the House should be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for putting down this debate on these two important entities— the old and the new. The old—tuberculosis—is often called the captain of death, and the newest is SARS, or severe acute respiratory syndrome. I declare an interest as chairman of the sub-committee of the Science and Technology Committee on fighting infection. We take a strong interest in both these entities.
	It is not many years ago that we tended to believe that as an island we were secure from many global diseases, but that is no longer so. As the noble Baroness said, Sir William Stewart, the recently appointed chairman of the Health Protection Agency, made the point that global disease entities are our neighbours. As an example of how diseases an spread, he estimates that there were 750,000 flights into the United Kingdom last year, bringing 72 million passengers into this country. We are a nation of 60 million or so, and we are exposed to the infections of 6.3 billion people on a global scale. Global infection is the norm.
	Tuberculosis is now classed along with HIV/AIDS and malaria as a major killer. The figures are horrendous, as the noble Baroness said. The WHO has said that between now and 2020 there will be 1,000 million new infections. Two hundred million people will become sick and 35 to 50 million will die. We believed that we had TB under control. Infection rates were progressively declining. But two entities changed the situation, one of which was the occurrence of HIV/AIDS. The two diseases go together, and the occurrence of tuberculosis is 30 times higher in HIV/AIDS communities. The other important factor is the antibiotic-resistant forms of the tubercle bacillus. In England and Wales in 1987, when we believed that the major problem was over, prevalence rates began to rise again. Whereas, in 1987, 14 per cent of all TB cases occurred in London, now 50 per cent occur there.
	As the noble Baroness said, the most effective therapy is directly observed therapy—or DOTS. There are five elements to DOTS, all of which must be accomplished for the programme to be effective. First, there must be political commitment to it. Secondly, there must be case detection, either by sputum testing or possibly by a new blood test, as was mentioned recently. Thirdly, standard treatment must be provided under direct observation. Fourthly, there must be an uninterrupted supply of drugs and, fifthly, standard recording and reporting.
	When introduced on a national scale in various countries, the cure rate has been very high. For example, in India DOTS has achieved a 95 per cent cure rate, at a relatively small cost of 6 to 20 dollars per patient. However, it is no easy task to satisfy all the criteria of DOTS, and unsatisfactory completion will lead to failure.
	In the United States, especially in the Harlem hospital which members of my committee had the pleasure and honour to visit, there is a very effective programme. They have extensive community outreach. Since the hospital is in a low socio-economic area, incentives for therapy are provided by way of food coupons and travel cards. Most impressive of all was the commitment of hospital staff, from cleaners to the chief medical officer, to getting rid of TB. The concept of the individual patient was that helping himself or herself to be cured of TB helped the community by clearing the infection from the local population and stopping transmission. Thus it became an outreach control programme.
	I join the noble Baroness in asking the Minister if such centres exist in the United Kingdom, how they are functioning and what plans there are for their expansion. Other areas on which she may wish to comment are vaccination, especially the availability of BCG vaccine and the development of new drugs to overcome the problem of multi-drug resistance.
	In the few remaining minutes I shall refer to SARS, which on the scale compared to tuberculosis is infinitesimal in terms of infection and death rate. Nevertheless, we do not yet know how far it is going to go. The main focus is the Far East, in China and Hong Kong, where there have been hundreds or thousands of infections with hundreds of deaths. We are fortunate in this country that we have had only six reported cases and no deaths. In the European Union, there have been 100 cases and no deaths.
	We need to ask about a number of entities in this matter. First, what are the facilities for isolation in this country of SARS cases? Have special nursing facilities been identified? What research developments have occurred in the field of antiviral drugs? Is there good collaboration and exchange of information between this country and the United States, where major developments in vaccines and antiviral drugs are taking place?
	SARS is an example of the truth of the adage that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We now know that that is best achieved by national and international collaboration, as has been well demonstrated by the response of the global community to SARS.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, may I remind the House that my noble friend the Minister will not have time to reply to the many questions asked if noble Lords overrun their time?

Lord Chan: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Masham of Ilton on securing this short debate on two important infections which are very relevant to the health of our nation.
	Tuberculosis is an ancient infection found in Egyptian mummies which still affects some 7,000 people every year in England and Wales. Conversely, severe acute respiratory syndrome—SARS—is a new infection which is probably caused by a new variant of the coronavirus. It was first reported last November, and within three months has captured headlines worldwide because of the fear it has generated in East Asia and in Toronto, Canada. Thankfully, there have not been a significant number of SARS infections in Britain. However, our communities at risk, such as the Chinese community, are as fearful of SARS as their counterparts in China, Hong Kong and Singapore. That is one reason why we should be considering this new infection for which there is no known treatment and from which some patients die within a week or two of falling ill.
	Tuberculosis cases have increased 27 per cent in the past 10 years, to 7,000 cases reported in England and Wales annually. Communities at high risk of TB tend to be new arrivals from Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Africa, South East Asia and some countries from eastern Europe including Russia. They account for the high incidence of TB in some inner-London districts. People with HIV/AIDS, particularly those from sub-Saharan Africa, tend to be malnourished, to have reduced immunity and to be prone to TB infection. Some have come to Britain for treatment.
	Physicians treating tuberculosis, specialist tuberculosis nurses and NGOs focused on TB have designated 24th March as Concern for Tuberculosis Day. The recent campaign to raise awareness of TB among high-risk ethnic minority communities is to be commended. Patients with TB can be successfully treated with a six-month course of anti-tuberculosis drugs. It is essential that patients complete their drug treatment. If they fail to do so, drug-resistant strains of TB may develop and become difficult to treat. As TB can be effectively prevented by BCG vaccination, I look forward to the Minister's report on how BCG immunisation is being administered to prevent TB infection in our children.
	SARS is a new infection which originated last November in China and spread to Hong Kong, Singapore and Toronto through an infected person spending a night at the Metropole Hotel in Hong Kong, infecting people living on the 9th floor of that hotel. The spread of SARS to Singapore and Toronto has been traced in detail by epidemiologists. Deaths have been highest among family contacts and healthcare staff. The death rate has risen from 4 per cent to nearly 10 per cent. Children are least affected and older adults most likely to die. There is no specific treatment for this pneumonia-like infection.
	In Britain we have had only six probable cases and all have recovered. However, high levels of fear are present in the Chinese community, particularly as they watch satellite television from Hong Kong and erroneously assume that precautions recommended there, where SARS infection is still active, should be implemented in Britain. Fear of SARS has drastically reduced the number of diners in Chinese restaurants in London's Chinatown. Chinese students attending boarding schools in England have been kept in quarantine in schools in the Isle of Wight and in Knutsford, although all have been in good health and, as far as we know, have not been in contact with SARS patients in Hong Kong or China.
	Will the Minister please give us assurance with regard to the system of SARS infection surveillance and indicate what advice should be made available to the Chinese community here? I look forward to her reply particularly as regards reassuring Chinese families that cutting themselves off from other Chinese who may have recently visited South East Asia is unnecessarily contentious. It would be more practical for all with coughs, colds and fever who have been travelling and have come home to consult their GP as soon as possible.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for initiating the debate. It is a subject which interests me as years ago the Brompton Hospital had a huge basement full of TB records. When the new hospital was being built and we discussed what we should do with the TB records some people said that they were history and that TB had gone for ever. However, those records were not thrown out in the expectation that one day someone would sort them out.
	No one then imagined that TB would come back in the way that it has. The tubercle bacillus is as serious today as it was when it caused such damage in the past. However, standards of general health have improved and perhaps people now have more resistance. On the other hand, certain strains are resistant to antibiotics.
	As far as we know, SARS and TB have a common form of transmission. We believe that they are both transmitted by air or in sputum. As the noble Baroness said, the world is small and jet air travel has made it even smaller. On 10th April during Starred Questions I asked about airlines and air circulation in aircraft. The Minister gave a satisfactory reply but subsequently I received an excellent letter from British Airways. Your Lordships may like to know that British Airways takes these matters very seriously and more than meets the World Health Organisation requirements. The letter states that,
	"approximately 10 cubic feet per minute [of air] is re-circulated and passed through high efficiency particulate filters to remove bacteria and viral particles. These . . . filters . . . are the same as those used in hospital operating theatres".
	That is reassuring for travellers. Indeed, it is believed that,
	"the Coronavirus is too large to pass through the filter".
	That is also reassuring.
	However, it is less reassuring to read the newspaper headline:
	"Touching a door is enough to catch Sars virus".
	We might have thought that we could prevent airborne transmission by wearing masks. However, now the newspaper states that transmission can occur through,
	"touching a contaminated table top, lift button, or doorknob, rather than being directly exposed to the sneeze or cough of a patient".
	The paper further states:
	"Globally, according to WHO, Sars has infected 6,234 people and killed 435".
	It also states:
	"Experiments show that Sars can survive for at least 24 hours on surfaces, and for several days in human waste".
	It is believed that that was a factor in the outbreak in a Hong Kong block of flats. A man infected with SARS used his brother's lavatory in the block. The sewerage system was defective. It is believed that the infection was transmitted via a tiny crack in a sewage pipe.
	Reading that latest scare story it seems to me that we still do not have any real idea of how SARS is transmitted. We are more able to deal with TB as we know how it is transmitted. We must be vigilant in that regard.
	When I first raised the issue of SARS in the Chamber during Starred Questions on 25th March the Minister told us that there were very good procedures for warning GPs about infections such as SARS. The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, asked whether we had isolation facilities. When I was chairman of the Royal Free we were responsible for the isolation hospital which was equipped to deal with the Ebola virus, which is much more serious. It was scary to see the ward in which people were to be nursed. The entire bed was encased in plastic. No hand came into contact with the patient. Even any food to be given to them had to put in one little hatch and taken out of another. We have the facilities but, to the present time, we have not needed to use them. The cases that we have had have responded to good nursing and good general care.
	Let us hope that this country never sees an infection like the Ebola; that would be just too terrible. I was very disturbed to read in, I think, the Sunday Times, an article written half-jokingly about that terribly serious subject. If what we are talking about tonight is serious, that is even worse. To write about it in that way was not good news.
	We will all be interested in what the Minister has to say. The financial implications for the world are very serious, and there must be some overlap between financial concern and health concern. People worry about how they will survive, which could be damaging in itself. There is awareness in this country and across the world, and we now simply have to proceed and do whatever we can.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, like others who have spoken, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, for having introduced the debate. I must declare an interest as a member of the Science and Technology Committee's sub-committee on fighting infection.
	I shall confine my remarks to SARS. In doing so, I pay particular tribute to my friends and colleagues who have been at the forefront of dealing with the epidemic. I suggest that it is because of the vigilance of healthcare workers, their quest for knowledge so that they can understand what is happening, the research they have undertaken and its rapid publication, the sharing of all data, and the rigour of applying isolation procedures that we do not have a much worse situation on our hands.
	The Hong Kong Hospital Authority website is excellent. It records that, as of yesterday, there were 187 deaths in Hong Kong, principally among those who had a history of chronic disease. The authority also records that 20 per cent of cases are among healthcare workers and their families and the volunteers working with SARS patients. It seems that hepatitis B and chlamydia are co-factors in the disease, and may account for children having a less severe and aggressive clinical course with their disease.
	I wish to read briefly from an e-mail from a friend of mine who is at the forefront of the battle. She is chairman of the Hong Kong Society of Palliative Medicine and describes its involvement, stating:
	"Just to name a few, both Dr. KS Chan and I have to work as clinicians in the SARS ward in different hospitals. KS volunteered to work in United Christian Hospital . . . which receives a bulk of very critically ill patients, and co-lead the team with the clinicians. I . . . have to set up the SARS ward in Caritas Medical Centre, and in-charge of the overall operation . . . The dying process of a patient suffering from SARS is very different from what we regarded as 'normal' because of infection control policy. To me, it could be the most isolated and lonely path for the dying patients and their families . . . In Caritas Medical Centre, we have a psychosocial support team comprised of social workers, volunteers, pastoral care workers, clinical psychologist and other supporting staff. They provide services . . . delivering supply from relatives to patients twice a day, provide brief account of the latest clinical condition, and sending words from relatives to patients by fax. As for the dying scene, I am still thinking hard so as to make it less traumatic . . . Many of my staff are staying behind to combat a possible outbreak in one of my wards. Many are sleeping away from home. It is time for me to take a break for today as well . . . The virus is extremely tricky".
	In Hong Kong, a SARS task force has been set up, and in Beijing the experience is similar. A doctor from Beijing has told me that approximately 8,000 people are in quarantine there. At great speed, a 2,000-bed isolation hospital is being built by the army on the outskirts of Beijing. It is anticipated that the epidemic there will peak in the next two weeks.
	Research among healthcare workers in Hong Kong has shown that those who have become infected have had a significant failure in using one of the protections, particularly a surgical mask. Paper masks are inadequate, but it seems failure in the use of a surgical mask has accounted for infection. Some of the others who have become infected have failed in the use of gloves, hand-washing or gowns.
	The cost of containment is massive and is resulting in a radical change in society. I quote an e-mail from another friend and colleague. She says:
	"No school . . . no lessons, no ice skating, no piano, no swimming . . . no travel . . . No touch . . . as the hand is dangerous and the face most vulnerable. Ladies don't play with your hair or touch your glasses . . . Don't rub your eyes . . . don't shake hands . . . don't kiss or hug . . . No talking . . . Note three feet apart and be anti-social . . . No coughing unless you want to have the whole room to yourself . . . No business . . . no flights . . . No banquets, no cinemas, no shopping, not even church . . . No rings nor earrings . . . no watches nor badges to work . . . no photo-frames, no cups nor chopsticks on your worktop . . . Don't leave work with [the] Corona [virus] . . . shower before you leave. Wash your watch and glasses too. Wash your hair . . . everyday. Then wash your phone and pager with hexolwipe . . . Have a clorox towel ready at your doorstep".
	She goes on:
	"I'm running out of clothes to wear. My whole wardrobe is lined up for the washing machine . . . the obsessive survive . . . The staff [are] burning out . . . When will it end?"
	This week's edition of the Economist and, today, the Financial Times have highlighted the effect on the economy. But what are some of the lessons that we have to learn? The Corona virus has been identified. It is a very tough virus. It survives cold; it survives on surfaces for at least four days; it may continue to be excreted in the faeces, particularly of those with diarrhoea, for about 42 days or longer. There may be others who are excreting the virus for even longer.
	Long hospital stays are required. In Hong Kong it is reckoned that 23 per cent of sufferers have required intensive care and ventilation. I ask the Minister: could we cope with such a situation here if we had a similar number of sufferers? Could we cope in terms of the supply of masks? In Hong Kong there has been a major voluntary fund-raising effort to buy enough equipment to provide the staff with adequate masks, gowns and gloves.
	Are we accepting adequate precautions here? Why did the department's advice on the way in which healthcare workers should be advised appear only on 30th April when our postgraduate students from abroad had returned to our healthcare institutions on the 28th and went onto the wards? Do we have enough supplies of disposables? Could we cope—or do we have to take the model of the giving people who have worked in healthcare in China and Hong Kong to try to contain the epidemic so as to protect us?

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on initiating a debate on these twin, but related, issues which are both very important. The expert contributions that we have heard have been illuminating.
	Last week we had an interesting exchange of views on SARS following the Government's Statement. I do not believe that any of us underestimated the seriousness of SARS, but the general view of this House was that the Government, advised by the WHO, the Chief Medical Officer and the Health Protection Agency, backed by the expertise of the NHS, had struck the right balance.
	Our main area of criticism on these Benches related to the visibility of Ministers and to the need to provide reassurance, and to the reasoning behind the decisions that were made in response to some fairly alarmist press coverage. This was largely remedied in our view by the Secretary of State's Statement last Monday.
	It is now good to see that the UK has been taken off the WHO list of countries affected by SARS, as the number of the six original cases has not grown any higher. It is also good to see—an area of major concern—that India is judged by the WHO to be SARS free. However, we must not be complacent in the UK or internationally. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the HPA and other agencies will remain vigilant. In particular, we must all hope that the Chinese authorities, after a bad start, now with a new policy of public openness, manage to bring SARS under control. In Hong Kong, however, despite the graphic and interesting consequences mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the outbreak does appear to be coming under control.
	We should also welcome the meeting today of European Health Ministers in Brussels, which is designed to ensure that the virus does not gain a larger foothold in Europe, and that there is a properly co-ordinated response to SARS. Public health is increasingly a matter that governments accept should be dealt with at the European level, in view of the speed of cross-border transmission, as we have seen with SARS.
	During the Statement last week, I asked whether there were sufficient resources for our infection control teams. The Minister replied that all necessary resources must be provided. She did not say how the HPA or the department would audit that. I asked the same question in the debate on MRSA in light of the survey findings of my honourable friend Paul Burstow; that is, that the perception in the survey of the infection control teams was otherwise. However, on neither occasion did the noble Baroness give me an answer. I do not know whether the answer is a secret, since she has not vouchsafed one so far. Perhaps it will be third time lucky in this debate.
	I believe that TB is a major contrast to SARS in being much longer-standing as a killer disease. As the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, mentioned, it is ultimately more serious. If I had a better memory, I could recite which of the Dickens characters suffered from consumption, which was so rife in our cities. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parkes, said, the worry is that it appears to have returned in spite of our belief that it had been conquered. Disastrously, TB still has a massive impact worldwide. Eight million people a year develop its most active form and 2 million people a year die from it. A total of 900 million people are infected with TB. Someone dies from TB every 15 seconds. Even in the UK, we have had outbreaks over the past few years in Leicester, Glasgow, Kent, Dundee and in particular London, where the majority of cases are now diagnosed.
	There are major questions about resources, which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, raised, and in particular about vaccinations. London is a hotspot, as the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, said: 50 per cent of the cases that come to the notice of health authorities are in London. There are major questions about the way in which that is being tackled in the area.
	At the end of the day, there are 7,000 cases in the UK. The key problems are on the international front. I welcome the actions by the World Health Organisation and the Stop TB Partnership, which is sponsored by it. I welcome the appointment of the next director-general of the WHO, Dr Jong Wook Lee, who spent the past two years as director of the Stop TB Partnership. Clearly, TB is high on the WHO's list of priorities. The UN has set the target of halving and reversing the incidence of TB by 2015.
	There is no doubt that the DOTS programme has had some major successes, particularly in China and India. However, in some sub-Saharan African countries and countries of the former Soviet Union, TB is still growing unchecked.
	Many of the answers lie not domestically here with the Department of Health but with DfID, the Treasury and the Foreign Office. We cannot isolate the UK from TB as it rampages in developing countries. We need action on a global scale. The WHO described it as the disease of the disadvantaged. It identified a funding gap of some 300 million dollars. What is the Government's view of whether there are adequate resources to fight it in developing countries? What pressure is being applied to pharmaceutical companies to prevent them from pricing treatment in developing countries out of the market?
	As regards the UK, apart from our international aid efforts, TB must be stopped in its tracks on every occasion at which it is detected. We must ensure that our surveillance is excellent domestically and on our borders. There are signs that TB is becoming resistant to antibiotics and that drug cycling is necessary to combat that. Work by the University of Tennessee shows that it is most effective on a cross-border basis, which means, for us, on a pan-European basis. Our belief is that health checks should depend on where one comes from, not who one is.
	Finally, it is important that our public health legislation is fit for the purpose. The Minister made it clear that the Government have accepted the fact that our public health legislation needs an overhaul. I hope that when she replies, she will cast more light on that and say when it is planned and of what it will consist.

Earl Howe: My Lords, the coupling of SARS and TB in the noble Baroness's Question brings home to us, as she explained so well, the urgency and difficulty surrounding issues of public health. Last week we had quite a full and helpful debate on SARS on the back of the Government's Statement to Parliament. I do not believe that it would be fruitful to go over for a second time all the territory that we covered on that occasion. I said then, and I repeat, that I welcome the measures that the Government have taken to prevent the further importation of the virus into this country and to ensure that if it does arrive, sound protocols are in place to minimise the risk of it spreading.
	Yet even in the past few days events have moved on. No new cases of SARS, thankfully, have occurred in the UK. There are signs that in the Far East, with the glaring exception of mainland China, the disease is being brought under control. It would be useful if the Minister could give us an up to date bulletin of new cases recorded in countries around the world over the past week and the progress made in stemming the progress of the disease.
	One obvious difference between SARS and TB is that, whereas we know a very great deal about the latter, the same is not true of the former. New facts and new theories are emerging about SARS with every day that passes. We cannot devise robust strategies for controlling the spread of SARS without clearer knowledge of the ways in which the virus can be transmitted; how long the virus survives outside the human body; and who is most at risk of getting it. The precautions that have been taken to date are sensible only in the context of current ignorance.
	It is certainly in no one's interests to exaggerate this scare in any way. The CMO has stated that the risk of catching SARS is low, yet, as my noble friend Lady Gardner said, the known facts inevitably change. Only a short time ago we were told that the SARS virus could live for a short time on the button of a lift but that the main route of transmission is through coughing. Now we understand that it can survive for up to 24 hours outside the body and that it can be transmitted via sewage. On top of that it appears that the virus can mutate quickly.
	As was said last week, two things above all will help to defeat SARS: flexibility of response and vigilance. Setting aside the difference of view between the Opposition and the Government about making SARS officially notifiable, I believe that the actions that the Government have taken and are taking reassuringly embody those two principles.
	What we would do and how we would cope if there were a major outbreak of SARS in this country is another question. The British Lung Foundation has expressed its grave concerns about the shortage of respiratory physicians. A third of all advertised respiratory consultant posts remained unfilled last year: and the number of consultants in the UK per head of population is under half the European average. In simple terms there are not enough chest specialists to cope with the present workload, let alone a bigger one.
	That sobering fact, on which I hope the Minister will comment, is relevant to TB, which is now officially a global health emergency. The noble Baroness drew our attention to the steadily rising incidence of TB notifications nation-wide and its worrying prevalence in particular hot spots such as London, where the rate of infection in certain boroughs is higher than in some developing countries. None of us can be complacent in such a situation. Still less can we be complacent in the face of new strains of TB that have proved to be antibiotic resistant. As with SARS, the strategy to counter the spread of TB must be twofold: prevention and containment.
	On prevention we have to face the fact that the rise in TB prevalence in this country is attributable principally to Africa and the Indian sub-continent. Individuals who arrive in this country either through the normal channels or as asylum seekers do not as a rule have to undergo medical screening, as they would have to in many other countries. I believe that we have to question whether we can continue to justify a policy of blissful ignorance about the health of those who apply to live permanently in the UK. Not to conduct basic checks for serious diseases such as TB or HIV both disadvantages the applicant and overloads the NHS. Compulsory screening of asylum seekers originating from TB hotspots is necessary. That is also the view of, among others, the BMA and the British Thoracic Society.
	But TB can of course also be prevented by vaccination. I should be glad if the Minister could say whether she is satisfied with both the availability and the potency of current BCG vaccine supplies. Can she also tell us what has happened to the action plan for TB in London which was promised some time ago and whether the TB Awareness Campaign launched last year by Yvette Cooper has had any success in reaching ethnic minority communities?
	In London we must be frank and recognise that strategies to control TB have thus far failed. London has the highest rate of drug-resistant strains and half the entire country's tally of TB cases. The action plan for London is of vital importance and will require both resources and a high level of commitment from all arms of health and social services. That commitment needs to extend across the country to our prisons. DOTS should be central to that. I hope that tonight the Minister will reassure us that there are credible strategies in the NHS to combat and to defeat this most tenacious of human infections.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for enabling us to have such an interesting and incredibly expert debate. I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke of their personal, professional experience and indeed of their many contacts on the frontline in order to inform us about what is going on in the most seriously affected parts of the world regarding SARS.
	There is an ingenious link between TB and SARS. Given more time and based on my previous existence as a historian, I would have been able to dwell for many minutes on the gift that TB presented to Victorian novelists and sociologists. We are extremely grateful that those days have passed. By the mid-17th century, one in five deaths in London—as recorded in the Bills of Mortality—was due to TB. The disease became known as the "White Plague". The 19th century estimate of the world-wide TB death rate was 7 million per year. London, as now, was one of the worst affected cities. There was an apocalyptic vision that by the end of the 19th century TB would decimate the country.
	So there are extremely interesting parallels, not only in the nature of the disease and the impact that SARS and TB might have, but also in the challenge that those diseases present to our public health system. Over a century later, just as tuberculosis helped to shape and strengthen our public health system and our ability to deal with infectious diseases, so now SARS has benefited from our having in place a robust public health system and our understanding of ways to prevent the spread of disease.
	The contrast between SARS and TB is that for TB we have diagnostic tools; we have the BCG vaccine and effective drugs. Those, together with improved nutrition and improvements in the public health environment, have played their part in reducing the number of cases in the UK. They reached 50,000 in the 1950s and dropped to 5,087 in 1987. As regards SARS, the brilliance of our researchers—and we pay tribute to them and to their outstanding contribution made in recent weeks in the discovery of the Coronavirus and so on—now means that we know a lot more about the SARS virus. But diagnostic tests are still in the early days of development and there is currently no specific treatment.
	My information to date is that there have been 6,583 cases of SARS reported from 27 countries and 485 deaths. Here, the control of SARS depends more on the traditional public heath measure of identifying and containing cases. Furthermore, as noble Lords have said, we have been successful. We have identified only six probable cases. The one case where infection was acquired in the UK, and as a result of which the WHO temporarily listed Britain as an affected area, was now more than 20 days ago. I am pleased to report that the UK, along with the United States, has now been removed from that list.
	Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, we must not be complacent. Although the situation seems to be improving in the most affected areas, including Vietnam, Singapore and Canada, in mainland China the number of people affected is still rising. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, pointed out in graphic detail what it means to be on the frontline and fighting the disease. That brought home to us, as nothing else could, what those health workers are facing on a day-to-day basis. I am very grateful that she brought that evidence to us.
	Our knowledge is changing. From recent evidence, we know that the virus may survive on door handles and in human waste longer than we had previously thought. We have to build that into our assumptions. It emphasises the need for infection control. Here, the Chief Medical Officer has issued very strong and stringent advice to chief executives about infection control systems. As I informed noble Lords last week, we are keeping our plans under review. We must do. We are learning lessons where they need to be learned; we are building on good ideas wherever they are to be found; and we are in daily telephone contact with the WHO. So we know exactly what is going on and, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, our researchers are in close contact.
	There are similarities also because both SARS and TB appear to be spread mainly through a chain of person-to-person contact—family and household members and, with SARS, especially among healthcare workers. But it is with TB that we face a new threat.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, said, we thought that we had achieved control over TB by the 1980s, but it has re-emerged as a public health problem, largely as a result of increased migration from areas of the world where TB is most prevalent. It is important to put that in context.
	During the past 10 years, cases of TB have risen in England and Wales to about 7,000 cases a year, bringing the long, steady decline to an end. I was grateful for the example provided by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, of how it can affect all of us, including a Member of the other place. We are delighted that he recovered so well. It is a global emergency, as designated by the WHO, which estimates that one third of the world's population is infected with the bacteria that cause it. Two million people die each year; and 8 million people develop the disease. It is important to stress that it is a curable infectious disease.
	In the UK, our highest levels of infection are among the Indian sub-continent and black African communities—and, of course, in London. TB has been identified by the CMO as one of the four infectious diseases requiring intensified control measures. It has given rise to the TB action plan, which I should like to describe, which was preceded by three initiatives to which I draw the House's attention.
	First, there was the TB awareness campaign, launched by the Department of Health, which hit its target audiences in the Asian, African and eastern European communities. We issued that information in all the appropriate minority languages and believe that it resulted in successful take-up.
	Secondly, we have responded to concerns about people arriving. Immigration officers at inward ports are instructed to refer passengers who arrive from relevant areas who plan to stay for six months. In 2001–02, nearly 150,000 passengers were referred at Heathrow. About 57,000 chest X-rays were performed; 138 people were referred for further investigation; and 94 were found to have TB and followed up with therapy. So we know that that form of surveillance seems to be working. Thirdly, we have completed a pilot in asylum induction centres in Kent, which is also picking up susceptible people. There has been a positive take-up by asylum seekers.
	We must regain the upper hand over TB and acknowledge that control has not been consistent across the country. The three main targets are to ensure that all people with TB receive high quality treatment and care; to reduce the risk of people acquiring new infections; and to maintain low levels of drug-resistance.
	The Chief Medical Officer will shortly announce the plan, but we want to develop strong co-ordination to deliver a national TB programme with a clear focus. That includes staffing plans—who we need, where we need them and how to get them—because so many people are involved in TB, whether communicable disease staff, GPs or nurses. Co-ordination is essential.
	We have worked hard on action in cities that have the highest burden of TB, and among population groups at risk, which obviously include the homeless and people in prison, for example. We shall ensure that patients are seen promptly and receive the aftercare that they need to support them during the six months for which they need to keep taking antibiotics. They do not enjoy it; but it is extremely important to support them in doing so, which is precisely where our strategy for fighting drug resistance is involved. We need patients to be seen more promptly and the laboratory services to work more quickly.
	Perhaps I may quickly answer a few questions. We are satisfied with the BCG immunisation policy. We have sufficient BCG vaccine. We had a shortage last year, but that is now entirely solved and overcome. We provide BCG immunisation mainly to babies at high risk of exposure to TB and previously unimmunised school children aged 10 to 14.
	In response to the noble Baroness's question about whether we could cope, we have in place contingency plans for outbreaks of infectious disease. We have no problem with the supply of masks at present.
	In response to the noble Lord, Lord Chan, who has been carrying out stalwart work with the Chinese community, we understand the need for reassurance. We will make an effort to provide further advice to the Chinese community. But, of course, the same advice that helps others in the community applies to the Chinese community. On resources, I say to the noble Lord that we have had an historic uplift in the NHS budget, which, I am sure, will make a big difference. We look forward to being able to do the things that we want to do and that we say we will do.
	In conclusion, last week, in a Statement to the House, I mentioned five actions that we were taking in response to the SARS outbreak. The letter to the chief executives that I quoted was certainly circulated. We have now sent observers to look at screening mechanisms in Hong Kong and Singapore, and we are negotiating with Beijing. We have written to airlines to remind them of their responsibilities under the l999 aircraft regulations. We are making substantial progress in information going on to airlines themselves. In the meantime, we had a European meeting today on co-ordination and development. We look forward to seeing what will come out of that.
	The UK has a very strong record of surveillance and management of cases. We observe the DOTS strategy set out by the WHO. I hope that, in response, noble Lords will appreciate that we are doing our very best in relation to both TB and SARS.

Communications Bill

House again in Committee.

Lord Crickhowell: moved Amendment No. 29:
	After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
	"APPLICATION OF GENERAL DUTIES TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE
	(1) Except as provided for in subsection (2), in carrying out his functions under the relevant enactments, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the general duties imposed by virtue of section 3.
	(2) The provisions of subsection (1) do not apply when the Secretary of State is carrying out his functions under—
	(a) the provisions of this Act set out in—
	(i) section 5,
	(ii) section 20,
	(iii) section 26,
	(iv) section 27,
	(v) section 129,
	(vi) section 153,
	(vii) section 160,
	(viii) section 329,
	(ix) Chapter 5 of Part 3,
	(x) Part 4, and
	(xi) Schedule 2;
	(b) sections 5 to 7 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 (c. 54);
	(c) section 7A of the Marine, &.c, Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967 (c. 41);
	(d) Part 5 and section 94 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 (c. 12);
	(e) section 63 of the 1990 Act; and
	(f) section 132 of the 1996 Act.
	(3) In this section, "the relevant enactments" means—
	(a) this Act;
	(b) the enactments relating to the management of the radio spectrum (so far as not comprised in this Act and Part 6 of the Telecommunications Act 1984);
	(c) the Telecommunications Act 1984;
	(d) the 1990 Act;
	(e) the 1996 Act; and
	(f) the Office of Communications Act 2002 (c. 11)."

Lord Crickhowell: In moving Amendment No. 29, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 311 and 312. I draw attention to page 31 of the report of the Joint Committee on the draft Bill, which deals with the duties of the Secretaries of State. The general policy of the Government has been made perfectly clear, and I respect it. It is that there should be a clear dividing line between the Government and regulators, and that the Government should set the overall legal framework and then allow the regulators independence to operate at arm's length from the Government within that framework.
	However, the Government propose that they should have a range of additional powers over Ofcom. First, the Secretaries of State are able to issue directions to Ofcom in respect of networks or spectrum functions in the interests of national security or relations with a foreign country, for the purpose of securing compliance with international obligations or in the interests of the safety of the public or public health. The Government also propose to seek an additional power, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, to further extend that range of purposes. Secondly, the Secretaries of State are able to issue directions to Ofcom in respect of broadcasting functions for the sole purpose of securing compliance with an international obligation of the United Kingdom. Thirdly, the Secretaries of State have wide-ranging powers to alter Ofcom's legal framework on a continuing basis by means of powers to issue more specific directions and to make secondary legislation.
	The Joint Committee considered that, as a consequence of those powers, the Secretaries of State will be able to exercise functions that are regulatory by nature. That is indicated in Part 2 of the Bill by the fact that certain functions of the Secretaries of State are subject to appeal, in the same way as are those of Ofcom. It was those facts that led to representations from a number of organisations—the Royal National Institute of the Blind, in particular—to the effect that the general regulatory duties under the Bill should apply to the Secretaries of State, as well as to Ofcom.
	That is not a new idea. It is not a novel concept. The Secretary of State is subject to the general duties under Section 3 of the Telecommunications Act 1984. It is a generally accepted principle, as we pointed out in the Joint Committee, that, in the words of the current Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting,
	"General duties . . . set the framework in which regulators—both the regulatory authorities and the Secretary of State—exercise their functions".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 29/2/2000; col. 232.]
	Paragraph 42 of the Government's response to our suggestion that the general duties should, therefore, apply to the Secretaries of State said:
	"We believe the functions of the Secretary of State and Ofcom, as set out in the Bill, to be quite distinct. The Secretary of State would be carrying out her functions in the context of wider policy considerations. In doing so, it would be open to the Secretary of State to import broader considerations of public policy than could Ofcom in carrying out their functions in accordance with their general duties. We do not therefore accept that it would be appropriate in general for the general duties to also be applied to the functions undertaken by the Secretary of State".
	I accept that there are certain functions of the Secretary of State that fall outside the general duties applying to Ofcom. It is for that reason that my amendment makes an attempt—I expect that I will be told that it is an imperfect attempt—to list the general duties that apply, except where they are exercising powers for public interest purposes. We understand that there are matters that should be exempted from any general duty application, and we have attempted to deal with that. The subsequent amendments deal with an outstanding element of the Joint Committee's recommendation 43, which was accepted in principle and relates to the reporting provisions of the Telecommunications Act 1984.
	Having myself been a regulator, I am a little sensitive on the subject of general duties and the relationship between Secretaries of State and the regulatory organisations. I know that there are matters in which Secretaries of State get involved in one way or another. However, it is a more important matter that leads me to move the amendment. There is a matter of principle. If Parliament gives regulatory powers to Ministers, the nature of those powers should be made clear and should be limited. The Bill, after all, spells out the extent of and the limitations on the powers given to Ofcom. It must be right that it should spell out with equal clarity the extent of and the limitations on the powers given to the Secretary of State.
	If Ministers believe that different duties should apply and that they should be specified differently, they should say so. The general principle that Ministers should not be empowered to do things without a set of principles that clearly define and limit their powers is an important one. That is the subject that I wanted to raise by moving the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Puttnam: I support everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. I am supported in that by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble Lord, Lord Hussey, who is not in his place. In response to what the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said, perhaps I may make an important general point which I hope I shall not have to raise again in Committee.
	Along with noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, I am a member of the joint scrutiny committee. It has been put to us that we are in danger of discrediting the process of joint scrutiny by tabling this very large number of amendments—70 in all. I should like to make it very clear that the reason 70 amendments have been put forward is because, as a joint scrutiny committee, we were wholly dissatisfied with the responses which we received from the Government to our report. I am a great believer in the process of scrutiny. If this process is to go forward, if it is to grow and to become a more important component of the life of this House, it will be increasingly incumbent on government to take joint scrutiny committee reports seriously, and not just numerically. I am delighted that the Government have responded positively to 122 of our 144 recommendations. It is not a matter of the quantitative; it is to do with the qualitative response—most particularly to those issues with which the Government do not agree.
	Seventy amendments have been tabled in order to probe and encourage the Government to say in this Committee what they could just as easily—I think in a much more time-saving way—have said in their initial response. This is a very important issue. I doubt very much that my colleagues on the Front Bench will agree with it, but next time joint scrutiny is involved, I suggest that the Government take their response far more seriously and respond in a far more detailed manner.
	Turning to the specifics of this amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, has covered most of the ground. Paragraphs 104, 105 and 106 of the joint scrutiny committee report make it clear that this is not a trivial issue. We suggest at the end of paragraph 106 that,
	"Government should find it possible to draft the Bill so as to disapply the general duties from the Secretary of State where it is appropriate to do so. A general disapplication would appear to be at odds with the principles of earlier legislation".
	The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, made that point very well. I am becoming very confused as to when a principle is a principle or when a general duty is a general duty because, as far as I can determine, the Telecommunications Act, the Utilities Act and this Bill seem to have taken very different lines. Therefore, three different regulators are being given three different forms of advice for three different forms of occasion. It is not tidy. I am the last person in the world to stand in your Lordships' House and suggest logic; I am anything but a logician. But there is a desperate lack of logic in the responses of the Government to what are important issues. I support the amendment wholeheartedly.

Lord Fowler: I, too, support this important amendment. We are very keen on setting up regulatory bodies, giving them powers and laying down principles by which they should act. However, when it comes to it, I suspect that it is more important that successive governments and successive Ministers should act according to the kind of principles that are set out in Clause 3; that is, principles such as the maintenance of a plurality of providers of different television and radio services. These are issues which are set out there and which I think should guide successive governments and successive government Ministers. As the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said, this clause spells out the position as far as Ministers are concerned.
	I am bound to say that I start from a suspicion of governments and government Ministers becoming involved with the media at all. I emphasise and underline that irrespective of political party. It is not remotely a party political point. The overwhelming interest of any government is that they should be seen in the best possible light on all issues, which can lead to all kinds of actions. When I served in another place as shadow Home Secretary a few years ago, I remember the Home Secretary placing an injunction on the national press because of a report that was embarrassing to him.
	As for the regulatory issues of this Bill, I underline a point made earlier. I believe that we all have suspicions about decisions on ownership made by governments. I certainly hope that the Secretary of State does not believe that there is any kind of consensus on the ownership provisions of the Bill, with which we shall deal later. We all deeply suspect that some previous decisions have been made on the grounds that it might be politically advantageous to do so—indeed, this also applies to decisions that will be made—because it is useful to have an owner on your side. On occasions, we suspect that Ministers can make decisions on reference to competition authorities which are very much based on their own beliefs, and which might reflect their own prejudices.
	Not all of those issues can be tackled by one new clause inserted in the Bill. However, the proposed clause lays down guidelines under which Ministers should act. I assume that the argument against such a provision is that government Ministers are different from regulatory bodies in that they are answerable to Parliament; and they certainly are. But the process and progress of this Bill show how inadequate such a check can be today. Over 100 of the clauses in this Bill were not debated in another place. That is utterly disgraceful.
	The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, who accomplished such a fine job on the scrutiny of the Bill, should not be apologetic about the 70 amendments that he has put forward at this stage. When the Bill was debated in another place, we can all agree that no adequate check was placed on Ministers responsible for this policy. It is very difficult to argue against that position.
	Although the proposed new clause is not a guarantee that Ministers will act objectively, sensibly, and with fairness, it would at least set down the principles that they should follow. The latter are important principles. I believe that most noble Lords in this place, and most of the people outside, would agree with them. I see every advantage in such a provision being included in the Bill in the way proposed by my noble friend.

Viscount Astor: I have some brief comments to make about my noble friend's amendment. Whatever party is in opposition, it seems to me that it is always moving amendments to Bills stating that the Government and the Secretary of State should have less power. It is then the duty of Ministers of the party in power to defend that position, because they are constantly being advised by their Secretaries of State in another place who, having finally reached their exalted positions, want to keep the maximum amount of power possible.
	I make the following comments with due deference to my two noble friends who spoke before me, both of whom have held exalted positions in another place. Nevertheless, I am sure that they will understand. The issue has been debated in this Chamber on many occasions during the course of legislative scrutiny. The one lesson that we learned from the two previous broadcasting Bills is that such legislation quickly becomes out of date. Therefore, it is important for the Secretary of State to have such power in certain circumstances, but also to have a wider view of such matters than we can possibly perceive this evening. At the same time, the Secretary of State must be answerable to Parliament and, indeed, he or she should not interfere with the running and the operation of Ofcom. If we are creating such an entity then it is important to leave it to carry out its duties without government interference, whatever shade of government that may be.
	The Minister will have to demonstrate why the amendment spoken to by my noble friend should not apply because, in principle, we all believe that governments should be made more accountable, not less so. To that end, I agree that the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, should make no excuses for the number of amendments he has tabled, in particular given that, despite the best of intentions, the system operated in another place does not allow it properly to scrutinise Bills. This is a revising Chamber and we would be derelict in our duty if we did not carry out that role.

Lord McNally: On the point of the number of amendments which have flowed from the scrutiny committee, I hope that we have been able to strengthen the position of future pre-legislative committees in getting from the Government the proper response that the work deserves.
	I wish to make a relatively brief point that flows from the remarks made by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. There is much in the Bill that attempts to deal with the problem often encountered by broadcasting and communications Bills; namely, that very quickly they become out of date. As the joint committee noted, the Bill leaves a wide range of discretionary powers to Ministers, along with certain regulatory functions. Therefore I seek simply to put back to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, the point he made about an hour ago. He pointed out very pertinently that we have spent one-and-a-half days debating in Committee the general powers of Ofcom. Having spent so long considering those general powers, it is a little rum to be told, "Oh, by the way, it does not apply to Ministers". Future historians would boggle at Parliament if such gaps were left so that Ministers could later ride a coach and horses through them. Furthermore, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, was right to point out that many of those gaps could be used by Ministers to make highly sensitive political decisions.
	The case for Ministers to be subject to the same responsibilities and guidelines that have been put with such care on the regulator is very strong indeed.

Baroness Buscombe: I rise simply to support the amendments. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, was in his place earlier when I referred to what the Secretary of State said in public last week. He stated that we had already reached a consensus on the Bill. That is why I am particularly pleased that the noble Lord has confirmed that he makes no apology—and nor should he—for bringing forward these amendments.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, will forgive me if I start by responding to my noble friend Lord Puttnam. I shall do so because he sought to make certain general points about the work of his committee and the nature of the Government's response. His first point was that the Government should not be resentful of the fact that something like 70 amendments have emanated from what I refer to as the "gang of four"—I am sure my noble friend will forgive me for using that expression, because it is how I have thought of the committee all along.
	We are not in the least resentful. We think that it is entirely proper for the pre-legislative scrutiny committee to recognise, first, that some 120 of the roughly 140 recommendations were accepted by the Government. My noble friend has acknowledged that and we are grateful to him for doing so. Conversely, however, it is also entirely proper for the committee to seek to protect and advocate the 20 or so recommendations which were not accepted by the Government. We harbour no trace of resentment about that and we do not in the least resent debating those points in public.
	However, my noble friend went on to say that in some cases the Government's response was, shall we say, summary and that we would have saved time if we had argued the case in more detail. On that I do think he is wrong. When we consider the Government's response, it is a response not only to the recommendations, but also to the evidence which was presented to the committee. If he looks at page 405 of the evidence presented to the joint scrutiny committee by the Government he will see that the issues raised by the amendment are covered in great detail. Yes, the response to recommendation 42, to which the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, referred, is fairly brief. But if we look at the detail in the evidence, we said that a number of powers were conferred on the Secretary of State and we explained the rationale for them.
	We have tried to define the powers and duties of Ofcom—particularly the general duties, which we have been debating for a day and a half—because it is important that we should get them right and that Ofcom should have powers and duties which are definable and workable. But that does not apply to the Secretary of State, who has to represent the public interest for a period of time.
	We suggested six broad categories where the Secretary of State should continue to have powers which were not restricted by the Bill. Incidentally, the amendment would restrict the Secretary of the State not only to the Bill but to Clause 3 of the Bill, which is not concerned with the whole range of responsibilities of either Ofcom or the Secretary of State.
	The six broad categories are: future-proofing powers, which have been referred to, that permit changes to the Bill once it has been enacted to ensure that it remains effective in the light of rapidly changing market dynamics—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally; powers to ensure public policy objectives, such as the provision of services essential to full social and economic inclusion—yes, of course it is a proper objective of Ofcom, but Ofcom cannot achieve it by itself and it needs to involve public policy; powers to ensure compliance with international obligations, a point recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, which he did not contest; powers to ensure the effective operation of concurrency and competition law and which concern the interaction between the Bill and the Competition Act 1998—which again has not been questioned as being a legitimate role of the Secretary of State; transitional powers—which again have not been contested; and the consequential powers needed to ensure that other areas of the law affected by the current regulatory regime are amended to reflect the proposed regime. Those are all matters which we need to get right to ensure that Ofcom is properly established.
	None of those powers seem controversial. They are not difficult to understand. It is clear that the Secretary of State will have to do this before, during and after the existence of Ofcom. No, I am sorry; Ofcom must last for ever, must it not? Nevertheless, these are proper things which, in the exercise of public policy, any Secretary of State must do. The fact that Parliament has created an Office of Communications and given it defined and workable powers ought not to detract from the responsibilities of any Secretary of State.
	It is suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that somehow the responsibilities of the Secretary of State are not constrained. They are constrained all the time. They are constrained by obligations arising under European Community law, under domestic law and under international treaties to which the UK is a party. All this is set out in the evidence that we gave to the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. So it is not new to any noble Lord to whom I am speaking today.
	Before using the power, the Secretary of State would need to consider whether such action was proportionate and compliant with the EC communications directives. But the exercise of the powers is not subject to the general duties set out in Clause 3(1) and 3(2) of the Communications Bill. The reason for that is that the Secretary of State can be expected to exercise wider public policy discretion than that of Ofcom when using its powers under the Communications Bill. Clause 3(1) imposes obligations on Ofcom, among other things, to further consumer interest and promote competition—although the wording has of course changed; we do not say "promote competition" any more—and to encourage efficient use of the radio spectrum. The Secretary of State will not be limited to the consideration of these factors when exercising her powers—and nor should she be.
	The Communications Bill does not impose a duty on the Secretary of State to take these factors into account, since Ofcom and the Secretary of State do not perform or share regulatory functions. This is the fundamental point which has to be recognised; it was made clear in the Government's evidence. The Secretary of State is constrained by the specific criteria listed in the Communications Bill, by the negative resolution procedure, by the affirmative resolution procedure and, of course, by the general requirements of administrative law.
	The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, recognises the division of power regarding the Secretary of State, who is accountable to Parliament. However, both former Secretaries of State—the noble Lords, Lord Fowler and Lord Crickhowell—are very cynical about the exercise of the functions they once exercised so joyfully.

Lord Fowler: I am not so cynical about that; I am, however, rather cynical about a Bill which appears in this House when over 100 clauses have not been considered. Does the Minister regard that as satisfactory? Is that what he is aiming to achieve?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have made no reference to that at all; I am not responsible for procedures in the House of Commons. That is the responsibility of the House of Commons. It would be utterly improper for me to make that kind of comment. The Bill comes to us having received such consideration as the House of Commons sees fit.

Lord Puttnam: Before the noble Lord moves on, I should like to make two points. First, I did not claim or suggest that the Government Front Bench were resentful of the number of amendments we brought forward. I did, however, make the point, which was put to me by the Government, that we—the gang of four—were in danger of discrediting the process of joint scrutiny because of the volume of amendments brought forward. I want to make it very clear—and I think I probably have an agreement from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—that that is not the case. It is important for the Committee to understand that the Minister agrees with me that it is very proper for a joint scrutiny committee to bring forward these amendments if it does not feel that the Government's response has answered it adequately.
	Of course the evidence the Minister referred to was taken into account by the joint scrutiny committee, but that was before we published our report. Is the Minister really saying that we should not have published our report because of the evidence received or that it would not have been a good idea—I think he used the word "perfunctory"—to answer a lot of detailed suggestions in page 31, paragraphs 104, 105 and 106, with something rather less than this pathetic response in paragraph 42 of page 13 of the Government's response? That is my point. If we are making powerful points, they should be answered powerfully, irrespective of whether the Minister feels that the evidence might have clarified the situation in the first place.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not know what has been indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. For myself and my colleagues on the Front Bench, I repeat that as far as I am concerned, it is entirely proper and, indeed, desirable for the joint committee, having made recommendations which were not accepted by the Government, to pursue the matter in Parliament by putting forward as many amendments as it thinks fit. I have never had the faintest doubt about that. If anybody else has indicated anything else, at the risk of charges of splits, I do not agree with them.
	Secondly, I did not use the word "perfunctory" and I did not use the word "pathetic". After all, the report has 140 or so recommendations, and each one is fairly short. I said that our response was summary—in other words, it did not cover all the detailed arguments we put to the committee in our evidence in any form. There really is no disagreement between us on this. We are delighted to be able to debate these matters with the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and his colleagues. We think it right that we should, and I hope that nobody will think that, given the time I have taken in responding to this amendment, we on the Front Bench have treated it with anything less than the respect it deserves. We do not agree with it; we think that there are separate functions for the Secretary of State, who has wider, continuing, changing responsibilities to Parliament and must ensure that we conform with our international obligations.
	We understand the motivation behind the amendment and the skill with which it was framed, because it very properly excludes matters of national security and other matters in which the Secretary of State ought never to be constrained. However, we do not believe that it is a proper way in which to set up an office of communications or to define its responsibilities in a workable way, or that the Secretary of State, who has wider responsibilities, should be constrained by a particular part of the general duties of Ofcom.

Lord Crickhowell: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who took part in this short debate, especially to my noble friends Lord Fowler and Lord Astor and to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, who supported the amendment from the Front Bench. However, I must make special reference to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, who so ably chaired the joint committee.
	I am sure that the noble Lord will be, as I am, extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for the statement that he has just made from the Front Bench about these amendments and our right to table them. I regard it as profoundly shocking that anyone should have suggested otherwise, so it is good that we now have an authoritative statement in the House from the Government. I put a little emphasis on the words "in the House", because this is one of the issues that was never debated in another place. The only reference to the duties of the Secretary of State was in the moving of a clause at the tail-end of the proceedings in another place, when it was proposed that a report should be published on the exercise of those duties. That itself says something about the issue.
	I am bound to say that I found slightly bizarre the answer to the criticisms that the response to the Secretary of State was perfunctory and inadequate. That answer drew attention to the evidence on page 405 that was given to the joint committee, but we had that evidence in front of us and we took account of every point in it when we drafted our report and made the comments and criticisms contained in it. It is precisely because we received that evidence that we drafted our report. To say that it is a response to our report seems a most extraordinary supposition.
	I do not question that the Secretary of State must have broad categories of powers. Indeed, I referred to most if not all of them. However, I come back to the fact that general duties have been applied to the Secretary of State in similar circumstances in other legislation, such as the Telecommunications Act 1984. Yes, Parliament will have the opportunity to deal with matters brought forward by regulation. Yes, there will be amendments later in these proceedings to some of the powers that may be taken by the Secretary of State, and we will debate them in more detail. However, the fact of the matter is that by referring to the evidence on page 405, the Minister has failed to answer the criticisms that we made. He could not provide an answer by referring to it because that was the basis of the criticisms that we made.
	I acknowledge that at this hour of the night, with an important Statement to follow, this is not the time to pursue the issue. However, in the light of the inadequacy of that response, we shall have to consider carefully what to do at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Thomson of Monifieth: moved Amendment No. 30:
	After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
	"DUTY TO PROMOTE COMMUNITY MEDIA
	(1) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to take all such steps as they consider appropriate for promoting the growth and development of community media.
	(2) In this section—
	"community media" means communications services provided primarily for the benefit of members of the public in a defined geographical locality or of a particular community and not operated by the BBC or for commercial purposes.
	(3) In subsection (2)—
	"communication services" includes—
	(a) radio and television broadcasting;
	(b) electronic communications networks and services; and
	(c) content services carried by services falling within paragraph (a) or (b)."

Lord Thomson of Monifieth: This group of amendments seeks to establish in the Bill the place of community media operations in the new landscape of broadcasting and telecommunications for the 21st century as set out in this massive Bill. Community broadcasting already has a long and honourable history. I can remember a local charity in my old constituency running an excellent local hospital radio service, for example. In the past, however, community broadcasting has always been limited by spectrum scarcity and has always met with—I am bound to say, and I say it with a guilty sense of self responsibility—a certain disdain from the engineering mandarins of the BBC and the IBA.
	We are now in a new situation. Road maps are very much in the news these days. This group of amendments seeks to set out a road map for the expansion of community media across the new broadcasting landscape. That landscape should include community-based radio, television and Internet projects, and they should be on the face of the Bill. The Government's proposals recognise the potential benefits of community media, but they are disappointingly tentative in delivery. The Bill provides enabling powers but no firm commitment to a tier of not-for-profit access radio services, an access radio fund or the development of local digital television services.
	The organisation Community Media is the co-ordinating organisation in this sphere. It is eager to exploit new opportunities for interaction between audiences and producers and to involve people directly in media production for community benefit and public service. Despite the difficulties, community broadcast groups are already quite widespread in the United Kingdom, located in both urban and rural areas. Radio Ryedale, for example, is a rural Internet-based webcast radio station and website. Tenantspin is a broadcast television service run by tenants in a Liverpool tower block. Desi Radio has a pilot 12-month licence for a radio service for West London's Punjabi community. Solent TV is a new not-for-profit community television service for the Isle of Wight.
	In the future, community broadcasting will expand to go on broadband and be receivable through the next generation of mobile telephony. However, it has been held back by a lack of regulatory support, difficulty in securing access to frequencies and channels and the absence of a structural financial base. Amendment No. 30 therefore proposes to make the promotion of community broadcasting one of the duties of Ofcom, linked to a clear definition of this important and growing sector.
	The next amendment in the group is Amendment No. 175. This new clause has the purpose of placing community television on the face of the Bill rather than leaving it to secondary legislation. The new clause has been drafted to provide a clear definition of community television and licensing criteria which would ensure the distinctive nature of community television as different from other local television services. As the cost of television facilities reduces and the techniques become easier to learn, there will be considerable interest in the development of new community television services.
	Amendment No. 176 deals with the funding of access radio—or community radio, as it is more widely known. The amendment proposes that access to radio should be able to draw on a variety of funding sources. The principle of a mixed funding base is important both to the viability of this sector and to its independence. That funding base should be allowed to include public funds and private funds raised from commercial sources such as advertising and sponsorship.
	I fully recognise that some in commercial radio, mainly existing smaller-scale local radio services, have expressed understandable fears that community radio carrying advertising sponsorship might have an adverse economic impact on their business. We consider that unlikely and not supported by researched economic evidence. The best evidence that that is the correct assessment is to be found in the proposed new clause in Amendment No. 177. That seeks to replace the existing Clause 258. It has been drafted by the Community Media Association in consultation and agreement with the Commercial Radio Companies Association. It has the purpose of placing community radio on the face of the Bill rather than leaving it to secondary legislation.
	The new clause provides a clear definition of community radio and licensing criteria which would assure the distinctive nature of community radio as different from other local radio services. It does so by amending the Broadcasting Act 1990 to give community radio a status in legislation alongside other independent radio services.
	Community radio is already a substantial and growing sector in the United Kingdom but it has been held back by an inappropriate regulatory framework. The Government have acknowledged the potential benefits of community radio. Over the past 12 months, with the Government's agreement, the Radio Authority has introduced, and recently extended, 15 experimental services—the access radio pilot scheme. The independent evaluation of that scheme completed in February of this year by Professor Anthony Everitt lends strong support to the case for a distinct licensing framework for community radio. In the foreword to his report Professor Everitt, a former secretary general of the Arts Council, states that this new tier of radio,
	"promises to be the most important cultural development to take place in this country for many years".
	The question now is not whether to proceed but how and under what rules. While the detail of licensing can well be left to Ofcom, there is no remaining reason why there should not be provision for community radio on the face of the Bill. That would give clarity both to aspirant community radio broadcasters and to the existing radio industry and would ensure that the new community radio sector builds on a clear parliamentary mandate for development.
	Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 302 which sets out a new clause to put the community media fund into the Communications Bill as a primary legislative provision. That would give the fund a similar status to the Gaelic Media Service. An important principle of any public funding mechanism for community media, and indeed other forms of public service media, is that the arrangements should be at arm's length from both government and the regulator. That is an important guarantor of editorial independence and it is necessary to avoid the funding mechanism becoming an additional tool of regulatory intervention. I tell the Committee as a Scot that the arrangements in this amendment are similar to those provided for the Gaelic Media Service and consist of the appointment by Ofcom of the members of the community media foundation who then take decisions within the framework set down in the legislation.
	The community media fund would be only one source of the financing of these new projects but it is thought that it might contribute between 20 and 40 per cent of costs depending on the need and the size of the operation. A potentially controversial issue is the source of income to the community media fund. In our view that should be taken directly from the receipts of Ofcom as part of the funding of the broadcasting side of the whole Ofcom operation. Alternatively, however, the receipts could be paid from the Consolidated Fund or, as some have suggested, from part of the BBC licence fee. For my part I would not rule out a part of the BBC licence fee but I think that in practical terms that would need to be examined in the context of the review of the BBC services and the charter renewal process. If our professed mechanism of funding from Ofcom receipts is not adopted, we on these Benches would recommend that the community media fund be set up initially through a contribution from the Consolidated Fund. I beg to move.

The Duke of Montrose: I would like to offer my support to Amendment No. 30. Community organisations work in sound, pictures, text and moving image, and encourage interactivity and community participation. A future-proof Communications Bill committed to community-based media should provide Ofcom with a clear duty to take a strategic cross-media approach to the growth and development of all forms of community media. In doing so, it should take account of the range of present and future platforms, and the trend towards convergence and new interactive media.
	We are all aware that the attraction provided by community media is that they give a channel for the promotion of culture, heritage and identity. They give access to local information, encourage citizens' participation, provide a platform for diverse cultures, and create a sense of local identity and community.
	Scotland has been at the forefront of community media development in the UK. There are a number of successful community radio stations in the highlands and islands that have been pioneers in developing the model for community radio. At one time, I came across what might even have been a spoof radio channel called Radio Clachnacuddin, which took a light-hearted look at the situation around Inverness.
	Amendment No. 177 deals with Clause 258. The Bill makes provision for a new type of radio licence that will enable the establishment of community radio stations all over the UK under the "access radio" provision. One of the "access radio" pilot stations, Radio Awaz, is also based in Scotland, in Glasgow. It has demonstrated the social benefits of community radio in the Asian community. Awaz FM not only fills a gap in entertainment and cultural provision, but gives the city council and police, who support it, and other public agencies an avenue of access to a somewhat isolated Asian community with which they find it difficult to communicate effectively by other means.
	As it stands, the Bill seems liable to enable the concentration of media ownership into fewer hands. There will be a growing need for community media in promoting and protecting local culture, and in enabling minority voices to be heard.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I too strongly support this group of amendments. Because community media, both television and radio, are so little known and make up such a tiny proportion of the total broadcasting output, there may be a temptation to overlook their potential. On other Bills, we spend a lot of time in the House trying to address the intractable problem of social exclusion. It is fair to say that community radio outlets reach the parts that commercial broadcasting and the BBC do not reach. That is mainly because they are set up and driven by the communities that they serve.
	I came across a striking example of community radio in the Feltham young offender institution recently. It is a remarkable and hugely encouraging experiment in community broadcasting, where the inmates do all the work necessary to broadcast not only within the prison, but for four weeks a year to the neighbouring community. As many Members of the Committee will know, the extent to which community media can broadcast is currently limited to a four-week broadcasting stretch at a time, save for the 15 pilot schemes that the Radio Authority has allowed recently.
	As my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth said, the Bill only refers, and then indirectly, to the community media in terms of the enabling arrangements under Clauses 241, 258 and 352. The Government may be inclined to say that they deal indirectly with community media in the keynote clause of the Bill, Clause 3. Members of the Committee may recollect that Clause 3(1)(b) refers to furthering,
	"the interests of the community as a whole".
	However, that does not cover at all the territory covered by the amendments, which directly address media outlets that are non-commercial. That is crucial, and should put to rest any anxiety from the commercial broadcasters as to the danger that community media pose to them. So, first, the amendments address the non-commercial media. Then, as the definition in Amendment No. 30 makes clear, we are looking at particular communities, whether geographical or interest groups, rather than, and in contradistinction to, the community as a whole.
	The Community Media Association deserves a great deal of credit for what it does. It has 250 organisations as members, 170 of which run some sort of community-based media—the vast majority being radio. That small army of community media could and should grow in the coming years exponentially. It needs to grow exponentially, because, as has been said, it has a direct and unique impact on the particular community that it serves, being created by them and serving their needs directly, enabling them and giving them esteem.
	So for all of those reasons I hope that community media will cease to be the Cinderella of the broadcasting family. I should like to think that bringing them to the heart of the Bill in the explicit way provided for in the amendments could usher in a new era for these very important small media outlets.

Baroness Buscombe: We are supportive in principle of community media, and in particular of community radio. We are sympathetic to these amendments put forward by the Community Media Association.
	I want, however, to raise a point in regard to Amendment No. 302. To be brutal, where will the money come from for the community media fund? Suggestions have been made by noble Lords that it should come, for example, in terms of receipts from Ofcom; but, in practice, is the funding to come from general taxation, from the national lottery or from some other source? Or is it to come from the general fees that Ofcom charges its licensees?
	We have had input from commercial broadcasters, who have raised some concern that, were they to pay into the community media fund as suggested by the amendment, they might be prevented from diverting resources for the improvement of their own services. There is a potential conflict here. I shall be interested to hear how the Government will respond to the amendments.

Lord McNally: I have added my name to the amendments. The case for them was skilfully put by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. I want to put to the Minister the fact that I was originally attracted to this cause as the result of meeting a young black activist from one of the more troubled London estates. She told me enthusiastically about the impact that local access radio had had on that estate in terms of getting through to young people and getting across positive messages of community.
	Listening to the advocates of these proposals, it seemed that I had heard some of the arguments previously. I say that in the ominous presence of the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane. In regard to community and access radio we seem to be hearing many of the hopes that we originally heard in regard to local radio. It is rather sad that in some ways local radio has been hoovered up by the conglomerates. Part of the debate that we had earlier about music, poetry and the spoken word from local communities has somehow been lost because of the commercial pressures and commercial amalgamations. The attraction of community broadcasting is that it gives us a second chance to use the technologies: to give local communities access to the technologies for local use, which may have been lost in the first round. One of my fears is that unless such a provision is written into the Bill, commercial interests will lobby against the greater proliferation of access radio—if they are successful, they will, make no mistake, take the audience from their commercial competitors—or they will work out some way of buying them all up because they were attracting audiences. We should then be into the same cycle of amalgamations and consolidations, which lose the essence and the attraction of that sort of broadcasting.

Lord Gordon of Strathblane: Before the noble Lord concludes, I offer him a further avenue of collaboration between the commercial sector and community radio. I do not mean to sound cynical, but there is a grave danger that community radio and community media are set up for the producers rather than the consumers. Grant-giving powers will simply be a beacon of hope to everyone who cannot get a job in the BBC or commercial radio to the effect that the local rates will give them the job of setting up their own radio station even if they are broadcasting, frankly, only to themselves. That sounds terribly much like a put down but I do not mean it in that way. Some of those people do very good work.
	However, there is another way forward. When the Annan committee was set up, I advocated to it that comparatively large stations such as my own at that point—Radio Clyde, which covered Glasgow—should be obliged to take rural areas under their wing. Radio Oban was a community radio service that covered Oban, which, as I recall, had a population of about 5,000 people and therefore, frankly, had no chance of being viable on its own. We offered a radio service to it as a sustaining service. We paid for it—for the land lines—but it could opt out of the arrangement whenever it wanted and could do its own thing whenever it wanted; it had a sustaining service for the rest of the time. That is a potential way forward. We had no vested interest in the matter whatever. The advertising revenue from 5,000 people is, frankly, buttons. It would not affect us one bit. We were happy to do that because we thought that it was worth while.
	That might be the way forward. We should not get caught up in the idea that community radio is automatically a good thing. I can quote examples by the barrel-load in Scotland of public money being ploughed into community radio, which went bust in six months because, frankly, no one was listening, not even the person's mother.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I was involved professionally, 25 or more years ago, in setting up the first partnership radio in Cardiff between the commercial and the voluntary sectors. They bid for and won a licence. Unfortunately, that bold experiment ultimately came to naught. I ask the noble Lord to consider that precedent. There are real problems about co-equal partnerships. The partnership that the noble Lord may have referred to was one of dominance by the commercial entity—

Lord Gordon of Strathblane: Not at all.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Well, if "not at all", the noble Lord should study the Cardiff example. It does not lend much encouragement to the noble Lord's idea.

Lord Gordon of Strathblane: This matter is entirely trivial but, purely for the record, Oban FM decided entirely on its own what it wanted to do. Radio Clyde had nothing to do with that. We were simply available, at no cost to it, whenever it wanted to fill gaps. The arrangement was entirely and quite genuinely altruistic.

Lord McNally: I believe that it is now my turn to speak. That exchange underpins the need for some protection for community radio in the Bill.

Baroness Blackstone: We have had an interesting debate on this matter. There is a slight danger that community media may become a little like motherhood and apple pie—necessarily always a good thing. I was enormously grateful for the intervention from my noble friend Lord Gordon of Strathblane. He brought to the debate a touch of realism as well as a rather constructive and interesting practical way forward.
	I do not want to suggest that the Government believe that opportunities for community media are not a good thing. We believe that they are. But I shall disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, by saying that I do not support Amendment No. 30. Indeed, I am afraid that I am unable to support any of the amendments in this group. I do not support Amendment No. 30 because I do not believe that it is necessary. Powers already exist to licence local TV and radio services. Clause 241 provides for local digital television regime stations and Clause 258 will enable the Secretary of State to introduce a new tier of access radio. We believe that enabling powers of that kind are appropriate here.
	Given that the powers will exist to license access radio and local TV, it is not clear what point is served by giving Ofcom an additional duty to promote those services. Ofcom already has a number of general duties that one would expect to encourage the development of local TV and access radio. I am confident that that will happen. Ofcom's duty in Clause 3(1) is to further the interests of consumers and the community as a whole. Put that in the context of Ofcom's duty in subsection (2)(c), to secure,
	"a wide range of television and radio services which . . . are both of high quality and calculated to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests",
	and one can see the relevance of Ofcom supporting and encouraging the development of community TV and radio. In the light of Ofcom's existing powers and duties there is not, in my view much, if anything, to be gained by adding yet another duty to promote community media.
	The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, raised the issue of convergence. It is perfectly true that it has been argued that a duty to promote community media is necessary because of the increasing convergence between media. The Bill is certainly designed with convergence in mind but that does not mean, for example, that the provisions dealing with radio and TV can or should be merged into a single set of provisions. The main driver for convergence is the creation of a single regulator which is well placed to look at issues across the communications horizon. It is not necessary to converge the powers if the body that exercises the various powers is itself converged.
	Turning to Amendment No. 175, I am unclear why this clause is necessary. We are committed to supporting local television, and existing analogue services are proving an important local focus for communities and a popular form of broadcasting. Ofcom will be able to licence local analogue TV as at present. And, as I have already indicated, Clause 241 provides for an effective licensing regime for local digital television which can come into force by order once digital spectrum becomes available. It is therefore not clear what the relationship is between the existing powers and the new clause. The new clause sets out criteria for award of such licences but these are not greatly different from those already in Clause 241. In short, other than cause a degree of confusion in the relationship between various licences, I do not think that this clause adds a great deal to the existing powers.
	In regard to Amendment No. 176 we believe that it is important that the Secretary of State should be able to use the order to place limits on the amount of sponsorship and advertising that access radio stations can take. That view is backed up by the very thorough evaluation of the pilot stations by Anthony Everitt which was published in March. He concluded that access radio stations should normally be able to receive no more than half their funding from advertising and sponsorship. In areas where there is a small commercial station, an access radio licence should be offered only if the applicant can show that it will present little or no advertising sales and sponsorship competition.
	No decisions have yet been taken on the funding of access radio, but it is clearly essential that the order should be able to place restrictions on the amount and type of advertising and sponsorship that such stations could carry.
	I turn to Amendment No. 177. There is no need for the new clause because Clause 258 already gives Ministers the power to introduce access radio. We are still in the process of considering Anthony Everitt's report, but I am confident that we will bring forward an order later in the year for consultation. It will be debated in both Houses, subject to the successful passage of the Bill. So I am not quite sure why the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, is opposed to dealing with this matter in secondary legislation.
	The amendment itself appears to want to bring access radio within the mainstream radio licensing regime. It seeks to do that by inserting a reference to "access radio" into Section 104 of the 1990 Act. However, Section 104 deals simply with the process of making an application. If the amendment were agreed, I am not clear how access radio would be treated in respect of other aspects of the licensing regime. The amendment is silent on that matter. In that sense, I think that it may be defective.
	Anthony Everitt's report identifies a number of special issues which need to be addressed with access radio. They include funding, a matter which I have briefly mentioned. There are other issues; for example, how to deal with changes in the composition of the board and arrangements for evaluation, in particular with regard to receipt of government grants. Again, it is unclear how these matters are to be dealt with. The new clause does not tell us. They are questions that must be considered carefully.
	We believe that access radio should be introduced in such a way to ensure that it has a good chance of success. That is through an order, on which we can consult, get people's responses and which Parliament will then have to approve.
	Finally, I cannot support Amendment No. 302 as I believe that any fund should be limited to access radio. It is a prudent assumption that if and when we are able to secure funds they will necessarily be limited. If so, TV would almost certainly swamp the fund. The end result would be that the jam would be spread terribly thinly. So let us be realistic and try and make a success of access radio. We should not deliberately raise expectations that we cannot fulfil. A small, over-subscribed fund could damage, not help, the development of community media. We do not want that to happen.
	On the issue of funding, there are certainly no plans to fund community media through broadcasting fees. That responds to the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that were that to happen it would become an issue for other broadcasters. We are looking at the prospect of some Exchequer funding for access radio, but no decisions have yet been made. It would—as I always have to say on these occasions—on the availability of resources. Finally, on that note, I do not think it would be right in some way to top-slice the BBC licence fee. The BBC is universally available, whereas access radio will only be available in local areas. I believe that it would be wrong to use a fee paid by virtually everyone in the UK to support services that would be available to only small numbers of people.
	In the light of the arguments that I have put forward, I very much hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Thomson of Monifieth: The Minister will not be surprised that I am disappointed with her reply. That does not particularly surprise me either. One is accustomed to being disappointed by ministerial replies. However, I am rather sorry that it was such a dispiriting reply because the community media movement comprises enthusiastic people who deserve more encouragement than that which came from the Government Front Bench.
	However, in consolation, it was not a response without substance. Having listened to it, it mentions several matters that we shall all want to study to consider whether we want to make different approaches later. I am interested in what my former colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, said about partnership with community radio in Oban, for example.
	So we shall return to that matter, but I am bound to say that I am dispirited by the tone of the response. In a massive Bill dealing with great issues—such as the creation of a global industry of telecommunications and broadcasting and of international ownership, which in turn raises great issues about the quality and character of the broadcasting scene in this country—I am rather dispirited that such a modest, grassroots operation should receive so much cold water from the Government Front Bench. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
	Clause 6 [Duties to review regulatory burdens]:

Lord Luke: moved Amendment No. 31:
	Page 7, line 33, at end insert "; and
	(c) to seek the views of persons providing services and facilities in relation to which OFCOM have functions on which of these functions should be subject to review."

Lord Luke: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 32. I suspect that the importance of ensuring that the regulatory regime keeps pace with advances in the industry will become a recurring theme in our discussion of the Bill.
	Amendment No. 31 is designed to ensure that the regulator consults the communications industry on those regulatory functions that should be subject to review. It is most welcome that Ofcom is required from time to time to review the regulatory burden and to identify those aspects of the regime that are no longer necessary or applicable, but I am concerned that despite those welcome inclusions, there is still a danger that Ofcom may lose sight of the views of those whom it regulates.
	From the experience of the Independent Television Commission and Oftel, we know that new developments in the communications industry can call existing regulation into question. The amendment would simply mean that Ofcom would consult the relevant service providers on those aspects of regulation that it believed should be subject to review. It would give business stakeholders confidence in the regulator's approach, while allowing them access to the detail and conclusions of the regulator's discussions. It would also allow businesses to plan ahead with a clear view of how future regulation would affect their industries—whether as suppliers or users.
	It would not require Ofcom to act on the consultation, but to give network and service providers the opportunity to participate in the regulatory discourse would help to ensure that the industry's regulatory regime would more accurately reflect the needs of communication providers.
	Amendment No. 32 is intended to enhance the industry's ability to co-regulate—to promote the maintenance of a self-regulatory function by the industry with back-stop powers for Ofcom. I ask the Committee to note the use of the words, "offer adequate opportunities", and, "as appropriate". The last thing that I should want is to impose a requirement on a self-regulatory body to report to Parliament.
	I understand the purpose of Clause 6 as being to promote a range of regulatory mechanisms, including co-regulation or, as the Joint Committee called it, accredited self-regulation. I further understand that to mean that any opportunities to expand the frontiers of self-regulation would be taken.
	I presume that Members of the Committee who will speak to Amendment No. 33 will have more to say about accredited self-regulation. My point is that those involved in self-regulation are not necessarily free from obligations to transparency and accountability. It is reasonable to write those principles into the Bill to allow for any such future developments.
	The amendment would merely allow Ofcom to consider what opportunities for accountability would be appropriate through it to Parliament and the Secretary of State. I beg to move.

Lord McNally: Amendment No. 33 is included in this group. As the noble Lord indicated, it allows us to discuss the pre-legislative scrutiny committee's ideas on self-regulation. It is a matter on which we agree with the Government. The Government stated that they wanted self-regulation to be extended wherever possible. We think that that is a very good approach and that those are good guidelines so far as concerns Ofcom and the whole communications industry.
	I noticed today that the new chairman of the Press Complaints Commission has put forward seven points to improve self-regulation in that area. It is sometimes said that this House has no power. Yet I read this morning that the BBC has suddenly started to think again about how its accounts might be subject to the scrutiny of the Public Accounts Committee. Today the new chairman of the Press Complaints Commission has come forward with some bright new ideas about self-regulation. I cannot think that these new thoughts from those bodies are entirely divorced from the fact that we are busily working on this business at present. We should be very encouraged to find that our endeavours are causing rustlings in the undergrowth in various parts of the forest.
	On this amendment, we think that, for self-regulation to carry the credibility it needs, Ofcom should be able to set down guidelines on proper self-regulation, against which the public and the sectors concerned can measure themselves. Accredited self-regulation is certainly not what, I think, was termed "a slippery slope to state control" in any of the sectors. It is exactly as the amendment suggests. It sets broad guidelines by which both the industry and the public can judge how a self-regulatory body goes about its business.
	The whole idea of this amendment is to try to push forward so far as possible the concept of self-regulation. Here we stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government. It is far healthier for all sectors of the communications industry, and for relations between the sectors and the Government. We already have a good example of self-regulation working. I see the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, moving in his seat. I hope that he will contribute to the debate. The Advertising Standards Authority, now chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has set a good example of how a body can be respected by the public and the sector. I understand that the ASA is in discussion with Ofcom, and I hope that it can conclude those negotiations successfully. That would set an example to other parts of the communications industry.

Lord Puttnam: I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and to prove that the "Gang of Four" are as one.
	As with so much during the work of the Joint Committee, the concept emerged from evidence. It was not dreamt up. Much of the evidence that we took was dispiriting, but, in this area, the evidence was overwhelmingly positive. We became very enthused. The purpose of the amendment is to say to the Government, "Please don't hope passively for self-regulation to emerge. Why not actively grab it? You have the ball at your feet". The idea of accredited self-regulation is neither odd nor particularly new. It is an idea in the wind, and it gives the Government the ball, so that they can get cracking with a new, more enthusiastic and determined form of self-regulation.
	The noble Lord, Lord McNally, is right. We have the best possible example represented on the Benches behind the Government. My noble friend Lord Borrie and the Advertising Standards Authority provide a superb example of what is possible. What we say here tonight will be heard in places such as the Press Complaints Commission. The Government must evince determination to support forms of self-regulation and the sense that it is the way of the future. Whatever we say tonight—whatever the Government say—I guarantee that, 10 years from now, self-regulation will be the norm, not the exception. That is the direction in which things are going, and accredited self-regulation must be the answer.
	We did a lot of work looking back at how, over the past 10 or 15 years, various professional bodies had, with enormous pain, come to terms with the fact that they had to get their act together and become more transparent. It is not surprising that professional bodies go through that pain barrier, but here is an opportunity for the Government to help them by promoting the concept of self-regulation. We are not suggesting tonight who the accreditor should be. Different bodies could be accreditors for different industries. It is a great idea, and the Government would do themselves an enormous service by enthusing about it and promoting it. The important subsections are subsections (4) and (5). They make the point. Without those subsections, the clause is limp; with them, we can point out clearly the way ahead.
	I must also say that the words "monitoring and" should be removed from proposed subsection (3)(d). That role already exists, and it would be inappropriate to the suggestion that we make to include the monitoring component. I urge the Government to take the rest of the amendment seriously. They would do themselves and the nation as a whole a great service.

Lord Borrie: I shall speak only to Amendment No. 33. I declare an interest as chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority, which adjudicates—and has done so for a long time—on non-broadcast advertisements, to determine whether, because they are misleading or seriously offensive, they should be banned.
	Amendment No. 33, put forward by the "Gang of Four"—if I may use that expression—for our deliberation, deals with guidance from Ofcom on standards for effective self-regulation. Generally, the objectives of those standards are set out in subsection (3) of the proposed new clause. They seem to me to be sound. I had some reservations about subsection (3)(d), but my noble friend Lord Puttnam said that the words "monitoring and" should not be included, so I shall read the paragraph without them. It says that the objectives are,
	"that the person or body responsible for...enforcement of the method of self-regulation has an appropriate measure of independence from providers of the relevant service".
	I trust that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will forgive my being pernickety. It was not the Advertising Standards Authority but a task force chaired and led by the Advertising Association, which has been in discussion with Ofcom over a period of time, that proposed to Ofcom a self-regulatory scheme for the control of broadcast advertising; that is, advertising on radio and television. The Advertising Association task force has included advertisers, agencies, broadcasters and so forth. As Members of the Committee have already said, the model it put forward is explicitly modelled on the existing Advertising Standards Authority.
	This existing system, comprising an adjudicatory body with a majority of non-industry people, is independent. I am grateful for those Members who said that it is well regarded. It certainly has a good basis of finance, with the Advertising Standards Board of Finance levying a 0.1 per cent impost on advertising billings so that—although anyone in my position would say that we never have enough money to do our job—we have been well-resourced.
	My noble friend Lord Puttnam perhaps is withdrawing the word "monitoring" from the amendment, but "enforcement" under the non-broadcast system run by the ASA is partly done by the industry itself; namely, the Committee of Advertising Practice, a federation of trade bodies representing advertisers, agencies and the media. The ASA's adjudications are accompanied by publicity and by the requirement to withdraw the advertisement and not to repeat any advertisement which has been found to offend against the rules. If necessary, in relation to a recalcitrant advertiser, the ASA will report the matter to the Office of Fair Trading which, being a statutory body, has legal powers to take action for an injunction under the control of misleading advertisement regulations.
	I have a reservation about subsection (3)(d) of the proposed new clause. However, the existing system for non-broadcast advertising also gives an enforcement role to the industry—to the Committee of Advertising Practice—working with its member associations, which includes media associations, in order that they are warned by so-called "ad alerts" that a particular advertiser and a particular type of advertisement should not be permitted. Similarly, the Royal Mail, which is a part of the Committee of Advertising Practice, will withdraw its bulk mail discount from an offender.
	I am speaking about self-regulation of non-broadcast advertisements. It seems neither surprising nor a matter to be criticised that the industry itself takes a hand in the matter of enforcement. I do not know and would not presume to tell Ofcom what the best arrangements may be for monitoring or enforcing any self-regulatory control scheme which it devises or accredits for broadcast advertisements in due course. We may be a little unwise if we prescribe in this Bill who or what kind of body does the enforcement. Independence, referred to in paragraph (d), is vital for any adjudicatory body, but in terms of enforcement there could be a mix of ways in which this is done. If the phrase self-regulation means anything, it surely must mean that the industry itself helps to do the enforcing.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We have built many measures into the Bill to ensure that Ofcom will not only be a good regulator but also a promoter of self-regulation. Clause 6 is an example of that, as it is about the obligation on Ofcom to review any regulatory burdens.
	I shall begin with Amendment No. 31, which requires Ofcom to seek the views of business on which of its functions should be reviewed. It is important for Ofcom to have a strong dialogue with business, but it should be wider than that proposed in this amendment. Clause 6(2), which Amendment No. 31 would amend, is not about which functions Ofcom should keep under review—indeed, subsection (l) requires it to keep all of its functions under review so that it does not impose unnecessary burdens.
	We do not expect that Ofcom will be able to fulfil its duties under subsection (1) without input from a wide range of stakeholders. Clearly, that will also involve business. However, the interests of business are not necessarily the same as those of other people to whom Ofcom will be talking. What appears to business as a burden might be a necessary protection for other people. Therefore, singling out business in the way suggested is not necessarily the right course of action. The amendment requires Ofcom to take the views of business, but not those of other interested parties.
	The Bill puts in place formal consultation, impact assessments, and, under Clause 6(4), publication of a statement setting out how Ofcom proposes to secure that regulation does not involve imposition or maintenance of unnecessary burdens. I believe that to be more practical than the restricted obligation on Ofcom contained in Amendment No. 31. It will allow Ofcom to decide how it will comply with the duty.
	Ofcom can use what we expect to be both formal and informal systems to build a clear view of what business and other people have in mind, not only in respect of regulatory burdens—the subject of Clause 6—but also other issues. We expect Ofcom to be listening to business right across the range of its activities, without the need for Amendment No. 31.
	I turn to Amendments Nos. 32 and 33. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, straightaway that the Government are not in any way reluctant about self-regulation. We specifically provide for self-regulation in respect of premium rate communications services, in codes of practice for dealing with customer complaints, and in the public service broadcasting provisions. Indeed, self-regulation is referred to specifically in Clause 3(3)(c) and, as I said, in Clause 6.
	Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 relate to references to self-regulation in Clause 6. As the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, will recognise, those references were inserted in the Bill in response to the recommendations of the Joint Committee. So both he and the Government can take credit for their inclusion.
	We considered different models for self-regulation and decided not to mandate processes or codes, or, as suggested by Amendment No. 33, to lay down in statute the factors that Ofcom should consider—other than the question of whether there is sufficient independence and adequate funding. Of course, Ofcom will be able to consider other matters as well as assessing the effectiveness, or possible future effectiveness, of self-regulation.
	We decided against accreditation—or what has been called "accredited self-regulation"—not because we believe, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that somehow this is a matter of going down the slippery slope to state control, which was not in our mind. We took that decision because accreditation is associated with defined standards. I should be interested to hear arguments on the other side, but we find it difficult to envisage a single standard that would apply to all the situations in which self-regulation could be used. The duties and considerations that are placed on Ofcom by the Bill provide a more practical and flexible framework.
	We are not so much laying down the process of self-regulation—the aim of Amendment No. 33—we are looking at the outcomes. I think that this is what my noble friend Lord Currie called "co-regulation"; in other words, it is an option for Ofcom.
	The point to make here is that there are varying degrees of self-regulation or co-regulation. It will be for Ofcom to balance the degree of accountability, reporting, involvement and how hands-on it will be against the extent to which it will be able to remove or reduce regulatory burdens. However, while I have a great deal of sympathy for what has been said by my noble friend Lord Puttnam and the noble Lord, Lord McNally—as they both pointed out, we are on the same side on this issue—I think that it would be a mistake to lay down strict guidelines or objectives for Ofcom.
	In itself, the amendment would not make self-regulation any easier. Indeed, there is a danger that it might add to the bureaucratic burden. Where there is self-regulation or co-regulation, it will be only where Ofcom has powers. I listened carefully to what was said about the Advertising Standards Authority and, while I agree with much of it, I rather suspect that praise for that authority is a surrogate for criticism of the Press Complaints Commission, which was not mentioned. Indeed, the innocent look on the face of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, confirms me in that view. We have repeatedly made it clear that Ofcom will not regulate the Press Complaints Commission, so I do not see how it could accredit that organisation.
	For these reasons, which are entirely sympathetic to the purposes behind the regulations, but which seek to explain the thoroughness with which the Bill addresses these issues, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.

Lord Luke: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. Although he spoke mainly to Amendment No. 33, which I shall not mention, it appears that everyone is keen on self-regulation in one form or another. No doubt we shall return to the matter at a later stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
	Clause 6 agreed to.

Lord McNally: moved Amendment No. 33:
	After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
	"ADDITIONAL DUTIES IN RELATION TO EFFECTIVE SELF-REGULATION
	(1) In considering for the purposes of section 6(2)(a) the extent to which matters which OFCOM are required under section 3 to further or secure are already furthered or secured, or are likely to be furthered or secured, by effective self-regulation, OFCOM shall have regard to the guidance prepared under subsection (2).
	(2) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to prepare, and from time to time review and revise, such guidance on standards for effective self-regulation as appear to them best calculated to promote effective self-regulation and the self-regulation standards objectives.
	(3) The self-regulation standards objectives are—
	(a) that the method of self-regulation offers protection or other benefits for members of the public in respect of a particular service beyond or in addition to those offered by the general law;
	(b) that a proper degree of responsibility is accepted and exercised by all participants in the method of self-regulation;
	(c) that the participants in the method of self-regulation, so far as practicable, include all providers of the relevant service in the United Kingdom;
	(d) that the person or body responsible for monitoring and enforcement of the method of self-regulation has an appropriate measure of independence from providers of the relevant service;
	(e) that adequate funding is available to the person or body undertaking functions in accordance with paragraph (d); and
	(f) that the operations of the person or body undertaking functions in accordance with paragraph (d) are transparent and accountable.
	(4) OFCOM shall make such arrangements as they consider appropriate for the accreditation of methods of self-regulation complying with the standards set out in guidance prepared in accordance with subsection (2).
	(5) The Secretary of State may lay before Parliament an annual report giving an account of activities under a method of self-regulation that has been accredited in accordance with subsection (4)."

Lord McNally: The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, was quite right to point out that it is the Advertising Association which is in negotiation with Ofcom about extending the ASA system to broadcast advertising. I also take the point made by my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, about the words "monitoring and" in subsection (3)(d).
	I mentioned the Press Complaints Commission only to praise the speech made earlier today by its new chairman, Sir Christopher Meyer. However, a challenge I find almost impossible to resist, but which I had not thought of at the time, was that made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, when he said that it was not possible to apply accredited self-regulation to the Press Complaints Commission. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not say that; I said that accredited self-regulation required a degree of defined standards. However, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is perfectly free to draw that conclusion if he so wishes.

Lord McNally: That is what I am doing. Bearing that in mind, we may come back to this matter on Report. I am most grateful to the Minister for making the suggestion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 7 [Duty to carry out impact assessments]:

Baroness Wilcox: moved Amendment No. 34:
	Page 8, line 45, at end insert—
	"( ) An assessment carried out under this section shall include an assessment, as appropriate, of the impact of the proposal upon the general duties of OFCOM and, in particular, the furthering of the interests of consumers through competition as set out in section 3(1)."

Baroness Wilcox: This amendment addresses the situation where Ofcom deems it necessary to carry out an impact assessment into the effects of a particular proposal it is planning to implement. The amendment states that such an impact assessment must include reference to how the proposal relates to Ofcom's general duties, and in particular how it would further the interests of the consumer through competition.
	We welcome the impact assessment as a measure that will strengthen Ofcom's transparency. The wording of the Bill, however, provides Ofcom with a high degree of flexibility as to the form and content of such an impact assessment. Hence subsection (4) states that an impact assessment,
	"(a) may take such form, and
	(b) must relate to such matters,
	as OFCOM consider appropriate".
	So while Ofcom may choose to set out how a proposal impacts upon its general duties there is no requirement to do so. Surely it is important, for the sake of transparency, for Ofcom to include reference in any impact assessment to how the interests of consumers are affected. I beg to move.

Lord Crickhowell: The clauses in this section of the Bill were not made available to the Joint Committee when it submitted its report. That is perhaps why there is no amendment on this occasion from the "gang of four". While I welcome my noble friend's amendment, I take the opportunity of noting what the Joint Committee said on the subject of impact charging when we agreed with the argument advanced by NTL and Telewest that,
	"regulatory impact assessments must review the impact of proposals on markets as a whole, not simply on the companies that are the targets of the regulation".
	Prompted by the fact that the amendment has been brought forward, I have for the first time, I fear, read this clause. As my noble friend said, it is extraordinarily widely drafted to give the ultimate possible discretion to Ofcom as to what constitutes a regulatory impact. In the light of the fact that the Joint Committee did not look at this issue previously and that particular recommendation, we may need to examine the clause more thoroughly than simply in regard to the point raised by my noble friend.

Lord Puttnam: I support the amendment. It makes an important general point that will no doubt be raised later. I was delighted that the Government showed enthusiasm for an impact assessment but I am puzzled even more today than at the time of the Joint Scrutiny Committee when we asked the Government to commission impact assessments on cross-media ownership, changes in media ownership and cross-media and cross-platform promotion—issues which are tremendously important and, for the most part, not fully understood. The Government, I rejoice to say, have made almost an obsession of evidence-based policy, but they are making very significant changes to long-established policy without any attempt to create any evidence whatever.

Baroness Blackstone: I can be helpful in regard to the amendment. We shall resist it because, as drafted, it does not properly reflect the relationship between Clauses 3 and 7. In carrying out all its functions, Ofcom must comply with its general duties. The duties can apply only where Ofcom has functions; they are not free-standing objectives or principles.
	Amendment No. 34 inverts the relationship between Clauses 3 and 7. An impact assessment can relate only to one of Ofcom's functions—which is subject to its duties—and not to the duties themselves. We cannot therefore require Ofcom to assess the impact of a proposal on a general duty.
	We can consider, however, whether impact assessments should state how a proposal will fulfil the general duty. I am not promising that we shall bring forward an amendment on Report because I want to be clear that requiring Ofcom to include a reference to its general duties would be helpful to those who would benefit from an impact assessment. We shall look at the issue.
	I also want to see what the amendment would add to subsection (4), which already enables Ofcom to consider what form an assessment should take and what matters should be included in it. I hope that on that basis the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Wilcox: I thank the Minister. At this late hour, to have such heartening news is a lovely way to end the evening, for me at any rate. I thank my noble friend Lord Crickhowell for his unexpected support, and the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. After the Joint Committee supporting our Front Bench and the Minister almost giving me my amendment, I am not sure I shall sleep. However, I thank the Minister very much; I greatly appreciate the response and the offer of a rethink. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 7 agreed to.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Northern Ireland

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Statement is as follows:
	"Mr. Speaker, with permission, I should like to make a Statement about political developments in Northern Ireland. I reported to the House last Thursday on our assessment of the state of Northern Ireland political dialogue, and our regretful conclusion that the elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, due on 29th May, must once again be postponed. We thought it right to announce that decision to the House as soon as possible, given that the election campaign was beginning. But the result was that many honourable Members from Northern Ireland or interested in its affairs were unable to be present.
	"I said, therefore, that I would return this week to say something more, giving those honourable Members who wished to participate in discussion a chance to come here. I am now also able to report on the discussions in Dublin today between the Prime Minister, the Taoiseach and colleagues, including myself.
	"In my earlier Statement, I recalled that, since the suspension of devolved government in Northern Ireland on 15th October last year, we had made a great deal of headway in discussions between the two governments and the parties there, aimed at completing the implementation of the Belfast agreement, including full restoration of the institutions. A comprehensive and detailed set of proposals had been drawn up by the governments, capable, we believed, of achieving broad support among the parties.
	"We published those proposals last Thursday. They consisted of a joint declaration by the British and Irish Governments setting out a vision of the full implementation of the Belfast agreement, with detailed annexes on security normalisation, devolution of policing and justice and human rights, equality and identity.
	"There was also an agreement between the two governments on how to monitor the parties' and the governments' honouring of commitments set out in the agreement and joint declaration, along with arrangements for remedying breaches of those commitments.
	"Finally, we set out a scheme for the handling of the cases of those on the run for terrorist offences.
	"But from the start, both governments had made it clear that, as the Prime Minister and Taoiseach put it on 14th October,
	'it must be clear that the transition from violence to exclusively peaceful and democratic means, which has been ongoing since the Agreement, and indeed before, is being brought to an unambiguous and definitive conclusion'.
	"Unfortunately, a draft statement by the IRA and subsequent comments by Gerry Adams were neither clear nor unambiguous. And without clarity, there could be no trust between parties—and no early return for devolved government in Northern Ireland.
	"The question that the Prime Minister—and the people of Northern Ireland—wanted the IRA to answer was a simple one. Will the IRA call a halt to all the activities listed in paragraph 13 of the joint declaration? Will it stop the so-called punishment beatings? Will it stop the targeting and the procurement of weapons? Will it stop inciting people to riot on the streets of Northern Ireland? Those are simple questions, to which there should be a simple answer—yes or no.
	"The IRA has tonight published its statement. As the two governments acknowledged at the time, it represented some progress. But Members of this House and the people of Northern Ireland can read it and judge for themselves whether it answers the fundamental question posed by my right honourable friend: does it mean the definitive end to all the paramilitary activity referred to in the joint declaration?
	"The view of both governments is that it does not. It is not a clear and unambiguous statement. Without that clarity, there can be no trust and, therefore, with great regret, we concluded that elections should be further postponed. We shall introduce later this week, and propose to debate next week, a Bill to authorise this postponement. We hope that the election will be held in the autumn.
	"I know the concern felt by many at this further delay and at the late stage at which it was announced. There is also a frustration on the part of many members of the political parties who had geared themselves up for a mighty effort, which is now abruptly halted.
	I well understand these feelings.
	"This was for us a very difficult decision. But, in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland and the unique form of government established by the agreement, we believed it was the only course to take. It is clear that, as the political dialogue stands at present, there would not have been the willingness to participate that is necessary to partnership government under the agreement.
	"We are planning to bring forward a Bill that will allow us to hold an election as soon as it is clear that the necessary trust between the parties has been re-established. We hope that that can be in the autumn.
	"The Government's course for the future is clear. We will go on seeking to build trust between the communities and hence the foundations for political advance.
	"We have had a great deal of success so far: what we are now experiencing, I believe, need be no more than a temporary setback. We are indeed in a position of great strength. Most of those foundations are already there. We have the agreement, and that must be the bedrock of any future progress. It is not something that is open to renegotiation. Indeed, a vast amount of progress has already been made in implementing it, especially in the vital areas of policing and criminal justice. However, it is a further strength that the joint declaration published last week represents a shared understanding between the governments and the pro-agreement parties of how we can proceed to the full and final implementation of the Good Friday Agreement.
	"That too has been the subject of discussion with all the pro-agreement parties and agreed by the governments. That also is not open to renegotiation.
	"As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister indicated this evening in Dublin, we shall proceed to implement many elements of the joint declaration which are not conditional upon action by others, for example in the areas of policing, criminal justice, equality, human rights, and some aspects of normalisation. We will also introduce the legislation necessary to set up the Independent Monitoring Body, which will, among other things, report on paramilitary activity.
	"But the joint declaration package also contains a number of measures which can only be implemented if there are acts of completion by the IRA. It is a strength of the present position, I believe, that there is such widespread recognition of the benefits that devolution has brought to Northern Ireland, and a wish on all sides to return to a local administration.
	"In the coming weeks, the Government will be consulting with all the parties—whatever their position on the agreement—about the best way of bringing devolution back to Northern Ireland as soon as possible.
	"Finally, I should remind the House that a key element in the progress that has been made is the close partnership between ourselves and the Irish Government. Without that relationship and the unstinting support of successive US administrations, the transformation that has already occurred in Northern Ireland would not have been possible. In fact, the reason for the late hour of this Statement is that I wanted to report to the House the results of this afternoon's meeting between the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, in Dublin. That was an important opportunity for the governments to reaffirm the centrality of their partnership to continuing political progress in Northern Ireland. There was agreement about the implementation of aspects of the joint declaration to which I have already referred.
	"I shall continue to work closely with the Irish Foreign Minister, Brian Cowen, to ensure that the political parties in Northern Ireland are encouraged to engage with each other to resolve current difficulties and to re-establish trust.
	"We have faced many challenges and setbacks in the five years since the agreement was reached and I will not pretend to the House that the current impasse is not serious. However, we are determined that this obstacle will be overcome—as others have been in the past. The critical issues of trust—over commitment to exclusively peaceful means, and about the stability of the institutions—can be addressed with clear statements of intent from all parties.
	"Events in the past few weeks have been deeply disappointing for everyone concerned—but they should not obscure the great progress that has been made. The publication of the joint declaration represents a major step towards the complete implementation of the Belfast Agreement. That agreement remains the only sustainable basis for a fair and honourable accommodation between nationalists and Unionists. It remains the only possible basis for peace. In the coming weeks and months we will work openly and transparently to further fulfil our side of the bargain struck in 1998.
	"We call upon the IRA to find the clarity—in words and deeds—to convince the people of Northern Ireland that they are ready to fulfil theirs".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement, which I think is being made in parallel in another place. What a sad day. I think that this is a terrible time of the day to take a Statement. When I heard some time back that there was to be a Statement tonight, I was looking for something momentous—a real happening and exciting news. However, as we have just heard, there is virtually nothing that has not been in the public domain for some time. The fact that we have the Statement now is not, I accept, directly the fault of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal. However, it is a rather sad Statement.
	The Government have again got themselves in a mess with Northern Ireland. They are going to need some support from all of us, which I suspect that they may ultimately get at some stage. However, I have a few questions on the Statement, the first of which concerns the actual decision-making process and the communication of it. Why did the Northern Ireland public hear that their elections had been cancelled from an Irish Minister making a statement in Ireland? It was pretty clear to those of us on the outside that this was another prime ministerial decision. In the Corridors I have heard it said that even the Secretary of State himself was not aware that the decision was being taken until it had been, and indeed that he was not thinking on those lines himself. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will give us a little enlightenment on the Corridor-speak.
	The Statement talks about elections in the "autumn", which is a very loose term. I suggest that the Government do not really know where they are in relation to elections. I do not blame them for that. They are waiting, quite rightly, for a response from the IRA. The Statement makes it quite clear that such a response is expected. Of course I strongly support the Prime Minister in his stance on that. However, I should like the noble and learned Lord to confirm that this will be the very last postponement of any future elections; that elections will not be called on the off-chance that the IRA might deliver something that is vaguely satisfactory; and indeed that they will not be called until such time as the pro-agreement parties are in a position of trust and understanding among themselves, which will allow the formation of a meaningful and workable Executive and government process. I suppose that it is always easy in hindsight. However, I do not think that it should have taken a lot of thinking and understanding of Northern Ireland affairs for that decision to have been taken some months back.
	The Statement raises one other big issue: the mention of the joint declaration. I purposely do not wish to go into it tonight, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord and other noble Lords will not expect us to. The joint declaration is a sizeable document which is now in the public domain. I do not feel that now is the time to debate it. However, I should like the noble and learned Lord to assure the House that the Government will continue to negotiate from strength and not drift back into giving away bits and pieces in the hope that they might get a titbit from the IRA's table in response. Noble Lords will understand that that will never happen. The Prime Minister is to be congratulated on finally taking a serious stance, digging in his heels and saying to Sinn Fein/IRA, "Do it first". I ask the noble and learned Lord to ensure, and assure us, that that will continue to be the Government's policy.
	My final topic concerns detail. Many human beings, civil servants, candidates who were members, Ministers, chauffeurs, drivers and secretaries are involved in this matter. Where do they stand in relation to salary, costs, future, insurance, pensions and so on? If there is to be some form of compensation, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will give us some idea of how that will be worked out and the cost that might be incurred.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for making the Statement available earlier.
	Last October I predicted a very long suspension of the Assembly. I regret that that has turned out to be the case. We reluctantly agreed to one month's extension before the calling of the election. We were assured time and again by the Government that elections would take place this month. Last week, without any consultation within Westminster, the Government peremptorily announced that there would be no elections until the autumn or even beyond.
	There is another way one could look at this. The mandates of the Northern Ireland parties are now past their sell by date. Those mandates desperately need to be renewed. If the elections had been held as planned, the parties could have negotiated between themselves as to whether an executive could be formed. It is far preferable, and possibly more productive, for them to deal with one another directly. The two governments have used their best offices so far but have manifestly failed to bring about an agreement. Put the onus now on the Northern Ireland politicians to address the matter head on between themselves. Sinn Fein would have to demonstrate its commitment to the full processes of democracy and the rule of law, as it should have done unequivocally long before now.
	I know that the English element of new Labour has little or no understanding of coalition or power sharing negotiations which are a commonplace in many European democracies and which, it should be stressed, are taking place at this very moment to form a new Scottish executive. It is not unknown within the United Kingdom. Westminster new Labour needs rapidly to improve its knowledge of the democratic dynamics of coalition building.
	The Belfast agreement provided for a review of its own workings. I suggest that if the Assembly had been elected, it could have been given a month to see whether an executive could be formed. If it could not—that may well be the result—the Assembly should be charged with reviewing the Belfast agreement. The agreement provided for its own review. It stated that,
	"the two governments and the parties in the Assembly will convene a conference 4 years after the agreement comes into effect, to review and report on its operation".
	Next December is the latest date for that review. Let it now be brought forward. To do it convincingly the parties must renew their mandates. The people should be invited to speak through the elections as planned.
	For those reasons it will be difficult for these Benches to support the Bill that the Government will seek to rush through next week. As my honourable friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland said in another place last Thursday,
	"we shall wait and see the contents of the Bill, but I foresee no circumstances in which we would support it".—[Official Report, Commons, 1/5/03; col. 463.]
	That said, at the very minimum the Bill must fix a firm and final date. The policy of manana cannot carry on. Northern Ireland elections must not be given the euro referendum treatment—some time now, some time never. First, I ask the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House to confirm that the Bill will contain a fixed and final date.
	Secondly—I reiterate in part what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said—what financial compensation will the political parties be paid to reimburse the moneys already paid out in preparation for an expected May election? Thirdly, will the Leader of the House give an assurance that in future Her Majesty's Government will properly and fully consult with the parties in Westminster, with whom they share legislative responsibility at the moment for Northern Ireland, and not simply rule by diktat? Not only is that offensive but it is highly likely to be counter productive.
	The Statement tonight says that the Government will continue discussions with the parties in Northern Ireland. I hope that they will extend the courtesy and discuss matters with the parties in Westminster. The longer the Assembly is suspended, the greater are the chances that it will not be restored.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I take the feeling of disappointment. I do not disagree that this is a sad occasion, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said. All noble Lords who have an interest in Northern Ireland affairs will know that I wrote to them as soon as I knew of the timetable today, as I always try to write to everyone with an interest. I explained that the Statement would be late but that it was preferable to try to deliver it today. I pointed out, I think accurately, that I normally do my very best to get prime time.
	Because the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State did not return by aeroplane until well into this evening, it simply was not possible to have the Statement earlier. I came to the conclusion with the Secretary of State that it was better to inform Parliament as fully as we could of this disappointing news rather than put it off until tomorrow. I think that that was the right judgment.
	The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said that the Government had got themselves into a mess. Nothing could be further from the truth. A particular section of political view, or paramilitary-connected view, in Northern Ireland has got itself into a mess, in my opinion. The question resolves itself to this: were the three questions that the Prime Minister put proper and legitimate questions to be put to Sinn Fein/IRA? If any noble Lord disagrees with the proposition that they were, I should be extremely surprised.
	That having been a conclusion, were the answers to those three questions sufficient to justify embarking on elections? Two questions were reasonably fully answered, and one was not. The Prime Minister pressed again for an answer to that third question, and the answer was not sufficient. It was insufficient not simply for a Westminster government, but to safeguard the legitimate interests of our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland.
	The Prime Minister made his decision in full conjunction with the Secretary of State—they work very closely together, to my certain daily knowledge—and of course having consulted our colleagues in the Irish Republic's Government. He came to the conclusion that there was no prospect at all, if the elections took place, of an effective government being set up in Northern Ireland. I do not know of any commentator on Northern Ireland who would reasonably come to a different conclusion. That being so, the decision was plain. Do we have elections on the basis of delusion of the electorate that there is a sensible prospect of a workable executive, or do we not? The difficult decision was the one that was come to.
	"Autumn" is a loose term. It is almost like "soon" or "shortly", and I cannot define it any better than that. I was asked by the noble Lords, Lord Smith and Lord Glentoran, whether I could say that this was positively the last postponement. After 600 years, however modest my reading of recent Irish history and politics, I do not think that anyone will invite me to say that. If they did, I would say, "No, not today, thank you".
	The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is quite right: the joint declaration is a sizeable document. Today is not the occasion to discuss it. It explains perfectly plainly the thinking of the two governments and the enormous opportunities available. The word tragedy is over-used but it will be a tragedy, after all this compromise, which is necessary, and all the achievement since 1998, if the opportunity is allowed to slip away. It would be grossly irresponsible, and I use those words with as much care as I can.
	Will the Government negotiate from strength? I believe that the Government do not simply negotiate from their own strength, but from the strength of what has been achieved since 1998. There have not been Provisional IRA bombing attacks on security personnel or police officers. That is nothing to boast about in what we hope to be a democracy, but that was not the history before 1998 that we all know too well. We need to be cautious when we are disappointed and saddened that we do not overlook the very significant achievements that have been made. They are not enough, but they are of great significance.
	It is suggested that the announcement was made by my former colleague, as Attorney-General, in the Irish Republic, Mr. Michael McDowell, now the Minister for Justice. Alarmingly, I did take the trouble to read his words. He was not making an announcement; he was stating what was possible as an outcome. He said that this is a potential outcome.
	The noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Smith, asked where the candidates stand, and developed the point further. There are people whose lives and livelihoods—both are important—depend on these decisions. Having attended substantial meetings in terms of length with the Secretary of State this morning, I can say that those decisions are being carefully looked at. It would be foolish to pretend to be able to come to those conclusions today. I can assure your Lordships that every care and consideration is being given to those matters—not simply in terms of those who are presently MLAs and who will be wanting to know where they stand. Not least, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, rightly said, people have expended substantial amounts of money on election campaigning, a matter that is foremost in the mind of the Secretary of State.
	The noble Lord, Lord Smith, is right. The happiest phrase in the English language is: "I told you so". He did say that he feared, with reluctance, a long suspension, and he is quite right. I was more optimistic than he. He was right and I was wrong—at that time.
	There was no prospect of an executive being formed. I think I have dealt with that point. I cannot say yes or no to a fixed and final date.
	The noble Lord, Lord Smith, urged consultation. I think I can reasonably say that the previous Secretary of State, Dr Reid, and the present Secretary of State have been as careful as they possibly could be in keeping all your Lordships fully informed. In the letter that I sent out today I reminded your Lordships that there would be a Peers-only meeting tomorrow, which the Secretary of State is determined, other matters being equal, to honour as a commitment.
	It has not been a matter of diktat. One cannot work in Northern Ireland in that way and one ought not to try to. We consult as fully as we can. This is a disappointment; it is not a terminal conclusion and we should not allow ourselves to be overcome with gloom—even at seventeen minutes past eleven.

Lord Laird: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for repeating the Statement. I thank him also for clearly putting the guilt for the dreadful situation that we are in at the steps of Sinn Fein-IRA. Rather than being here tonight, I had been looking forward with my colleagues to being on the hustings in Northern Ireland—an experience of which I have been deprived this spring, unlike other Members of this House, who have experienced elections over the past few weeks in other parts of the United Kingdom.
	It is sad that this is where we have arrived today. It is sad that democracy has been turned on its head. I accept a great deal of the reasoning of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal concerning the activities of the IRA. There has been a breakdown in trust. We in the Unionist Party feel that very strongly.
	The future for the island of Ireland is about trust and understanding. It is on that basis that the major tenets of the Belfast agreement were set up, including the north-south implementation bodies—the whole business of "north-southery". It is only on that basis of mutual trust and understanding that they can be successful. The two peoples on the island of Ireland must be involved in all decision-making processes before the process itself is finished. That was the cornerstone, the bedrock, on which the Belfast agreement was not just put together but was endorsed by the electorate in Northern Ireland.
	Does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal agree that if, for whatever reasons, no elections take place in the autumn, the whole area of north-south machinery may have to be looked at, and that it cannot continue if there is no Assembly and no Executive. The two items are very much interwoven. It is a case of the Belfast agreement or nothing.
	Can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal give an undertaking that in all future decisions taken by both governments and the North-South Ministerial Council about the implementation bodies will be done through the fully correct and legal procedure? Will he also confirm that all decisions must include both administrations and unionists and nationalists?
	On this sad day, there is not much I can say on behalf of my party except that we will look at the joint declaration very carefully—we have done so—and we will follow very closely developments in discussions in Dublin or elsewhere over the next few months. We will make our assessment of that and report back to this House.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with his usual courtesy, the noble Lord gave me some pre-knowledge of the ground he would cover. He dealt with what might happen in the autumn. I am reluctant to be led into speculation because our genuine, abiding hope and belief is that we shall have elections in the autumn. I must reflect on one or two of his questions and will write to him. I can confirm that decisions taken in relation to the implementation bodies under the agreement, which he mentioned, have been and will be taken in accordance with its provisions. I believe that the noble Lord used the phrase, "in accordance with correct and legal procedures". I am happy to reaffirm that.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I ask these questions as someone who presumed to write to the Prime Minister and my successor, Dr Mowlam, to congratulate them on the Good Friday agreement. Does the noble and learned Lord recall the words reported in today's Irish Times from Sinn Fein's chief negotiator, Martin McGuinness? He said that,
	"the suspension of the Assembly elections was nothing but a betrayal of the Good Friday Agreement and the peace process by the British Government at the behest of the Unionist leaders who find it difficult to come to terms with change".
	If those words, despite their outlandish character, are tested dispassionately against the published position of Her Majesty's Government, is it not plain that it is the IRA that is refusing to fulfil its part of the agreement and to come to terms with change by refusing to say unequivocally that republican beatings—and even crucifixions and exilings—will henceforward cease?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have not read the text of what Mr McGuinness said but I have no reason to disagree with what the noble and learned Lord recited. I cannot see a betrayal by the British Government or the Irish Government of the Belfast Good Friday agreement. That was certainly not done at the behest of the Ulster Unionists, if it was the consequence of anyone's behaviour.
	I return to my original question, on which I believe the noble and learned Lord and I will agree: were those three questions from Prime Minister Blair legitimate to be asked? Was there any ambiguity in their terms or purport? If the answer is that they were legitimate and plain, why—this is not a rhetorical question—are we not entitled, entirely consistent with the Belfast agreement, to request, on behalf (I repeat) of our fellow citizens of Northern Ireland and our citizens in the rest of the United Kingdom, plain answers to those simple questions? We do not need any biblical scholarship any more. It is perfectly plain. If there was betrayal, that cap must be worn where it properly belongs.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord consider that the formula "peace with honour" could help paramilitary groups of all kinds to cease punishment attacks, intimidation and exiling? Does he agree that such things are far more obnoxious than the retention of unused weaponry? Would he further accept the need for some kind of transitional arrangement between the status quo in many ghetto areas and the extension of normal policing to all parts of Northern Ireland?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not regard any of those activities as consistent with honourable behaviour. I do not regard them as consistent with the Good Friday agreement. There are different aspects of the 1998 agreement and I do not believe that it is fruitful to say which is the most disagreeable of the activities that contravene it.
	If one looks at the declaration and at what has already been achieved by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, one sees that despite great difficulties they have been working towards "normalisation". It seems to me that all the steps that have been taken are not partisan steps; they are for the benefit of the whole community. I repeat that the benefit of the Belfast agreement is undoubted in a civil society. Heaven knows, this Parliament has taken matters on trust. We have passed things with which we have not immediately been content and many noble Lords have worried and troubled themselves as to whether they were doing the right thing in every appropriate circumstance. It seems to me that the British and Irish governments and large sections of political opinion in Northern Ireland have behaved not only honourably, but also generously. What is rightly looked for now by Prime Minister Blair and Taoiseach Ahern is a decent reciprocity of response.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I want to pay the warmest tribute to the Government for the way in which they have handled this matter. It is absolutely right that they have stood up for the needs of the people and I believe that the people will recognise that. I very much respect the way in which further equivocation by the IRA has not been accepted. That is entirely reasonable and proper. I pay tribute to that.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Baroness. All noble Lords can usefully look at those three questions and at the answer. I shall not offer the answer to my next question: is that a mealy-mouthed answer or does it have the candour that we are reasonably entitled to seek?

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, two positive points have come out of tonight's events. It is a very sad night and I am sure that all noble Lords who have a concern for Northern Ireland feel that, but two positive things have emerged. The first one, paraphrasing what my noble friend Lady Park said, is that it is wonderful to see such complete solidarity between the two governments. Both governments have decided that they have not had the unambiguous and clear statement from Sinn Fein/IRA that would answer the questions. The fact that there is that solidarity is good.
	Secondly, I was absolutely delighted to hear the noble and learned Lord refer to Sinn Fein/IRA rather than to the IRA. I now believe that at long last people believe that there is complete cohesion between Sinn Fein and the IRA and that there is nothing—not even a cigarette paper—between them. We have just arrived at those two points and we have to accept them. My question is whether we believe that we shall ever receive a clear and unambiguous response from Sinn Fein/IRA.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I hope so because that is what history, politics and morality require. However jaundiced one's view is, I believe that two of the three questions were answered in a satisfactory way, as Prime Minister Blair pointed out. The third question was there for the answering. It is not simply a matter of playing with words, as has been claimed; a commitment is required. When others have made a significant commitment we should not overlook the degree of anguished compromise to which some Unionists have had to put their hearts and minds. As I said earlier, we want a decent reciprocity of response. I am grateful to the noble Baroness because I looked at the responses of the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister in Dublin this afternoon before our Prime Minister returned here and both governments said that not enough had been done.
	We are tantalisingly close. It is a great shame sometimes that the obituaries of people such as Mr Sissulu in South Africa are not read with more care.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for both the Statement and his courtesy. It is impossible to tell from this Statement whether the IRA would have been forced or faced with the need for the clear and unambiguous statement now demanded from them prior to new Assembly elections if the Assembly had not, for causes we know, been suspended last October.
	Does the noble and learned Lord accept that the two governments' expression of the need for this clear and unambiguous statement now is a good product from a bad business, and that the decision now to postpone the Assembly elections in current circumstances enjoys support among some in your Lordships' House, even at this mildly inconvenient hour after ten o'clock?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think the outcome is a required outcome which comes from disagreeable decisions made by others. Those decisions having been made by others—I ought to say, having failed to have been made by others—made the position of the Irish Government and the British Government quite inevitable if they wanted to discharge what they saw as their duty and to honour their commitments.

House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before midnight.